KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 725/2015

JUDGMENT DATED: 06.11.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 25/2013 of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                     : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. Branch Manager, Manappuram Finance Limited, Payyangadi Branch, Tirur P.O.

2. General Manager, Manappuram Finance Ltd., Valappad, Thrissur-680 567.

(By Adv. S. Reghukumar)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Muhammed Farooq, Appattil House, Ozhur Post, Tirur Taluk.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 25/2013 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short “the District Commission”).

2.  A complaint was filed by the respondent before the District Commission contending that the respondent had pledged his gold ornaments with the appellants for an amount of Rs. 7,37,100/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand and One Hundred only).  The interest rate was 16% for one year.  Due to financial stringency, the respondent could not repay the loan amount.  Thereafter, when the respondent approached the appellants for redeeming the gold ornaments, the appellants demanded an amount of Rs. 2,05,233/- (Rupees Two Lakh Five Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Three only) as interest.  The respondent was also informed that if he would not redeem the gold, the said gold ornaments would be sold in auction.  Since the appellants had charged more than 27% interest upon the loan, the respondent alleged that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants.

3.  The appellants filed version before the District Commission admitting the loan transaction and contending that no financial institution could survive without proper and reasonable payment made in time.  Since the payment was not made by the respondent, the appellants suffered huge financial loss and hardships.  As per the terms agreed to by the respondent, the respondent should have paid the dues along with the prescribed interest within thirty days.  The interest rate was fixed at 26.04% for the first thirty days of default and the interest rate would be 29.04% from the 31^st day to 60 days of default and above that period, interest would be 30% as per the terms agreed to by the respondent/complainant. 

4.  Before the District Commission, Exhibit A1 series were marked for the complainant. ExhibitB1 series were marked on the side of the appellants.  After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.  Accordingly, the District Commission directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand only) as total interest in addition to the principal amount of Rs.7,37,100/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand One Hundred only).  It was further directed by the District Commission that on receipt of the aforesaid amount, the appellants should return the gold ornaments to the respondent. 

5.  Heard.  Perused the records. 

6.  Exhibit A1 series would show that the respondent had agreed to the rate of interest as contended in the version filed by the appellants.  The short question to be considered in this appeal is as to whether it is permissible to a party to go beyond the terms and conditions agreed to by that party, once that party is a party to an agreement.  The National Commission in Rakesh Jhunthunwala v. Rajasthan Housing Board and another, reported in III (2010) CPJ 274 (NC), held that when the rate of interest is determined by the parties, the consumer commission cannot direct payment contrary to the rate of interest agreed by the parties.  In the case on hand, the District Commission had fixed the interest at 16% and directed the respondent to pay interest on the basis of the said fixation.

7.  Having gone through the contentions in the light of Exhibit A1 series, we are satisfied that the respondent had agreed, at the time of pledging the gold ornaments, that the rate of interest as stated by the appellants in the version would be followed.  Since the rate of interest was agreed by the parties, the District Commission had no authority to fix the rate of interest deviating from the agreed terms.  The District Commission found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants as the appellants had demanded higher rate of interest.  As we have already stated above, since the amount of interest demanded by the appellants was in accordance with the terms agreed to by the parties, it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.  Therefore, the finding of the District Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants cannot be sustained.  Consequently, the direction of the District Commission to pay Rs. 1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand only) as total interest cannot also be said to be correct.  Having gone through the relevant inputs as discussed above, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained and consequently we set aside the same. 

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order dated 22.06.2015 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 25/2013 stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed.  In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. 

The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be refunded to the appellants, on proper acknowledgment. 

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                     RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER