Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/16/2015

P.Ashok Kumar, S/o.Pandian, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Muthoot Finance Ltd, Rep by its Branch Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

R.Thandan

06 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  16.06.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  23.03.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY  THE 23^rd   DAY OF MARCH 2018

 

C.C.NO.16/2015

 

 

P.Ashok Kumar,

S/o. Pandian,

No.91, 10^th Street, Thirumal Nagar,

Surapet Main Road,

Kolathur, Chennai – 600 049.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

M/s. Muthoot Finance Limited,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

No.200, M.T.H. Road,

Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 27.01.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. R.Thanjan, D.Muthukumarappa

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : T.Muruganatham, R.Saranya

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.811.50/- towards the value of the lesser weight of the jewel to the Complainant and also to pay compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant humbly submits that he has pledged the following jewels:

a.Necklace 1 No.                        - 16.90 grams

b.Chain with dollar 1 No.                   - 7.10 grams

c. Rings 3 Nos.                           - 11.30 grams

d. Matti 2 Nos                            - 2.00 grams       

and obtained jewel loan from respondent’s Finance Company, thereafter the complainant has also redeemed the said jewels on 18.12.2013 by paying the loan amount and interest and at the time of delivery of aforesaid jewels, the following variations found in the jewels weight:

1. Necklace 1 No.                        - 16.80 grams
2. B. Chain with dollar 1 No.    - 7.00 grams
3. Rings 3 Nos.                           - 11.20 grams

 The complainant has found 300 mgs lesser weight than the original weight and therefore, complainant have demanded clarification for the same, but opposite party’s officials have neither clarified the same nor paid any amount for the  lesser value in jewels weight, instead given a letter on the same day, i.e. on 18.02.2013. After receiving a letter mentioning the lesser weight of 0.3 grams in the delivered jewels by informing that complainant could take any legal action on the basis of said letter.

          2. The said jewels with lesser weight of 0.3 grams, the complainant could not able to do anything with opposite party’s company, even though the complainant has pledged the said jewels with hope that the same would receive without any damage or lesser weight at the time of redemption, but the complainant’s shock and surprise that he has received lesser weight of jewels, even though opposite party’s company is reputed and existed in broad level, but giving lesser weight made the complainant not only a shock and surprise, but also a mental agony and torture, for which the opposite party is liable to be answered to complainant. The present value of the said jewel is Rs. 811.50/- value of 1 gram  is Rs.2,705/- as on 04.06.2014 as per market value on the date of filing of the present complaint. Hence, the opposite party is liable to pay either the value of 0.3 grams or the jewel and also liable to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and torture and also for a deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.    

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant had pledged the jewellery mentioned in the complaint with the opposite party. At the time of receiving the jewel by the complainant, the opposite party found certain amount of dust and dirt in the jewels and requested the complainant to bring the jewels after removing the dust and dirt. He was urgently in need of money for family needs and he did not have time to go home and remove the dirt and dust in the jewels. Considering the urgency for the need of money by the complainant, the opposite party had weighed the jewels with dust and dirt. Further the opposite party had informed the complainant that at the time of redemption of the jewels, there might be possibilities of difference of weigh due to the presence of dirt and dust. The complainant also agreed for the same and pledged the jewels and got the money.

          4. On 18.12.2013 the complainant redeemed the jewelleries from the opposite party. At the time there was a difference of weight to the tune of 0.100 milligrams in each jewellery totaling in all 0.3 mgm in all the three jewels. The difference is very meager and negligible. The difference is because of the dust and dirt present in the jewellery and also while weighing the jewellery in the weighing machine without closing the door of the weighing machine, there is a possibilities of disturbance by air. Further, it is not the case that the opposite party had given different jeweller other than the pledged one or scratched the gold from the jewels. Absolutely there is not mark or evidence that gold is removed or scratched from the jewelers.

          5. The complainant had pledged another set of jewels with the opposite party and due to the default in payment, the opposite party initiated proceedings for bringing the property for auction. At that time without paying the money the complainant requested the opposite party to stop the auction. The opposite parties conveyed their inability to stop the auction without making payment and the property was sold on auction. Since, the property was auctioned by the opposite party, in order to wreck the vengeance and to harass and trouble the opposite party, the complainant has filed the above complaint. There is no deficiency in service and the complaint is motivated and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

 

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

It is an admitted fact that the complainant has pledged his jewels (1).Necklace 1 No.- 16.90 grams, (2).Chain with dollar 1 No.7.10 grams, (3). Rings 3 Nos.- 11.30 grams and (4). Matti 2 Nos - 2.00 grams with the opposite party and obtained loan amount and he has redeemed the said jewels on 18.12.2013 and at the time of delivery of the said jewels, he found the variations in the jewels weight that the necklace weighing 16.80 gms, chain with dollar weighing 7.00 gms and rings were weighing 11.20 gms and thus totally in all the 3 items 0.3 gms lesser weight found than the original weight and the complainant gave Ex.A2 letter about the deficit weight of the jewels to the opposite party and the opposite party gave Ex.A3 letter to the complainant admitting the variation in the weight of the jewels.

          7. The opposite party himself admitted in his letter Ex.A3 that while returning the pledged jewels to the complainant 0.3 gms weight is lesser than at the time of pledging the jewels to him. The opposite party would contend in his written version that the variation in weight is meager and negligible and further the difference is because of the dust and the dirt present in the jewellery and also while weighing in the weighing machine without closing the door of the machine, there is a possibility of disturbance in the air and further on earlier occasion the complainant jewel was auctioned by this opposite party and to wreck vengeance, the complainant had filed this complaint and therefore the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.

          8. After pledging the jewels by the complainant, the same was within the custody of the opposite party. The opposite party also admits the variation in weight while delivering the jewels to the complainant at the time of redemption. Hence the opposite party only has to explain how that variation weight was occurred. The dust and dirt was present in the jewel and to wreck vengeance this complaint has been filed cannot be accepted. In Ex.A3 letter the opposite party admits the variation. He has not stated any reason for variation in said letter. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the reason stated in the written version is only an afterthought and the same cannot be accepted without any basis. Hence we hold that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service in delivering lesser weight jewels to the complainant than the jewels pledged with him.

09. POINT NO:2

          According to the complainant the deficit weight value of the jewel is at Rs.811.50/- on the date of redeeming the jewels and therefore the opposite party can be directed to pay the value of the jewel of Rs.812/- ( Rs.811.50/- rounded to Rs.812/-)  to the complainant. The complainant as a consumer believing the opposite party entrusted his jewels and obtained jewel loan. While returning the jewels the variation found in the weight is an unfair trade practice of the opposite party. To curtail this kind of practice of the opposite party to his customers, it would be appropriate to direct him to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.812/- (Rupees eight hundred and twelve  only) towards the value of the lesser weight of the jewel to the Complainant and also to pay  a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd  day of March 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 06.12.2012                   Copy of Cash Receipt and jewel redemption

                                                    receipt issued by opposite party to the complainant

 

Ex.A2 dated 18.12.2013                   Complainant’s letter to the opposite party

 

Ex.A3 dated 18.12.2013                   Opposite party’s letter to the complainant

 

Ex.A4 dated 18.05.2014                   Complainant’s legal notice to the opposite party                                      

 

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     A/D card from the opposite party to

                                                complainant’s Advocate

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      ……..NIL …….

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT