COMPLAINT FILED: 25.08.2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON 04.06.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 4TH JUNE 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2037/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Subramani. A.,<br /> No.422/9, 2nd Floor,<br /> 7th Cross, Subedarpalya,<br /> Yeshwanthpur,<br /> Bangalore – 560 022.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri. V.Dalapathy<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s Muthoot Finance Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> 325/7, HMT Main Road,<br /> Mathikere,<br /> Bangalore – 560 054.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri S.D.N. Prasad<br /> <br /> O R D E R S<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to return the gold hand chain, chain, ‘F’ ring, studs and necklace weighing in all 63.400 grams after collecting the principle amount of Rs.36,000/- from the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:-<br /> <br /> Complainant pledged one gold hand chain, chain, ‘F’ ring, studs and necklace weighing in all 63.400 grams and availed an E.P.L. loan 0047661 of Rs.36,000/- at the interest rate of 24% p.a. from OP on 23.08.2007. OP sent a notice on 13.09.2008 to redeem the jewels or to renew the same. Complainant approached OP with interest amount of Rs.10,000/- and requested to renew the same and sought for six months time to clear the dues and furnished his changed address. OP insisted to clear the loan in full. When complainant approached OP in the last week of March – 2009 to the surprise of the complainant OP has already sold the pledged articles in auction without serving any auction notice. Complainant sought for details of auction rate etc., OP failed to give proper reply. The moderate estimate of minimum gold rate was Rs.1,400/- per gram as on date of auction of the jewels. Accordingly the value of the jewels would be Rs.88,760/- the liability of the complainant was around Rs.50,000/-. Still complainant is liable to get balance of Rs.40,000/- from OP. Complainant caused the legal notice on 23.07.2008. Inspite of service of notice there is no response from OP. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under these circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the necessary reliefs. <br /> <br /> 3. On appearance OP filed the version mainly contending that complainant is not a consumer; hence complaint is not maintainable. Complaint does not spell out a case of hiring of service or suffering from any deficiency; complainant is a defaulter. After availing the loan complainant did not turn up to clear periodical interest as agreed; OP has issued notice on 27.09.2008 to complainant calling upon to redeem or renew by paying interest within fifteen days; otherwise articles pledged will be sold in public auction. Inspite of receipt of notice complainant failed to clear the dues; left with no other option OP auctioned the gold articles through its authorized auctioneer; on 18.02.2009 auctioneer also issued the notice intimating the auction date 16.03.2009 at regional office of OP; copy of the notice and RPAD are produced; on 11.03.2009 OP also issued public notice in ‘Samyukta Karnataka’ daily news paper; complainant did not bother to redeem the articles pledged by him; complainant is a defaulter and never approached the OP. Further OP denied that minimum gold rate was around Rs.1,400/- per gram during March – 2008 and the auction was conducted in March – 2009 and not during March – 2008 as alleged by the complainant; among other grounds OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced the copy of the notice dated 23.07.2009, postal acknowledgement and receipt issued by OP dated 23.08.2007. On behalf of OP its Manager Sri. V.P. Kodakani filed affidavit evidence and produced copy of the notice dated 26.09.2008, postal receipt dated 27.09.2008, public auction notice dated 16.02.2009, list of articles pledged, paper notification dated 11.03.2009. Both the parties submitted written arguments. Then heard the oral arguments. <br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved the<br /> deficiency in service on the part of the <br /> OP? <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for<br /> the relief’s claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Negative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Negative. <br /> <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order. <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the out set it is not at dispute that on 23.08.2007 complainant availed EPL (easy personal loan) of Rs.36,000/- from OP by pledging gold hand chain, chain, ‘F’ ring studs and necklace, weighing in all 63.400 grams agreeing to pay interest at Rs.24% p.a. and executed the necessary loan documents. After availing the loan the complainant has not made any correspondences with OP nor paid periodical accrued interest on the loan availed. On 13.09.2008 OP has sent a notice to the complainant either to redeem the jewels or to renew the loan. <br /> <br /> 8. It is contended for the complainant that after the receipt of notice dated 13.09.2008, the complainant approached the OP with interest amount of Rs.10,000/- with a request to renew the loan but OP insisted to clear the loan in full. Again the complainant approached OP and sought for time of six months to clear the dues and furnished his changed address. In our view these allegations are vague allegations; the complainant has not pleaded the specific dates of his approaching the OP on the said two occasions. In case if complainant offered to pay interest of Rs.10,000/-, there was no reason for OP in refusing to receive the interest and renew the loan. Hence there is no merit in the contention of the complainant that OP refused to receive the interest and renew the loan. When complainant himself is a defaulter, there is no justification to allege the deficiency in service against OP. <br /> <br /> 9. The other main contention of the complainant is that OP has sold the pledged jewels without serving any auction notice. Further when he sought for details of auction rate etc., OP failed to give proper reply. In our view OP has produced the postal receipt for having sent the notice dated 26.09.2007 and copy of notice to the address furnished by the complainant. As per that notice the complainant was informed either to redeem the pledged articles or renew the loan by paying interest within 15 days if not the gold ornaments pledged will be sold by public auction. The complainant has not produced any material to prove the fact that he has furnished his changed address to OP. Thus it becomes clear that OP has issued the notice intimating the complainant regarding future course of action in default of redeeming the articles or renewing loan by paying interest. <br /> <br /> 10. OP has also produced the copy of auction notice dated 16.02.2009 along with postal receipts dated 18.02.2009 for having sent the auction notice to the complainant. OP has also given the public notice in Samyukta Karnataka daily news paper dated 11.03.2009. Inspite of OP giving personal and public notice mentioning the date, time and place of auction, complainant failed to redeem his pledged articles as per the agreed terms. <br /> <br /> 11. The Complainant having availed loan of Rs.36,000/- on 23.08.2007 by pledging the gold ornaments; failed to make payment of principle amount with interest in due, inspite of giving personal notice and public notice, hence OP auctioned the pledged articles and recovered the amount due. This act of OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. It is said who seeks equity must do equity and must approach with clean hands. But here the approach of the complainant is otherwise. Under these circumstances the action of the OP in exercising its contractual obligation and legal right to recover the amount due cannot be termed as deficiency in service. The complainant utterly failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 4th day of June 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Snm<br /> <br />