Date of Filing : 18/03/2011
Date of Order : 26.11.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 26th day of November 2011
PRESENT
Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO B.Sc.B.L. …. President
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 552/2011
Sri.A.C.Jagadish,
S/o.Channa Bsavaiah,
Aged bout 32 years,
R/o.No.37, CSM Road,
Hebbal,
Banglaore.
(By Advocate Sri.Madhukar Nadig) …Complainant
V/s.
Muthoot Finance Private Limited,
(A Muthoot M Georage enterprises),
Office at No.343/9,
11th Cross II Floor,
Sampige Road, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore 560 003.
Rep. by its Manager.
(By Advocate S.D.N.Prasad) ….Opposite Party
ORDER
(By the President Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO)
The brief antecedents that yet to be filing of the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the OP to pay a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- are necessary.
1. On 20.10.2008 the complainant has pledged 20.600 grams of gold jewellary and obtained a loan of Rs.14,500/- and on 04.11.2008 had pledged 29.500 grams of gold jewellary and obtained loan of Rs.21,500/- from the OP. At that time the OP got the gold apprised, verified and then sanctioned the loan and given. Subsequently the complainant wanted installment and paid some installments and later wanted to know the account and OP refused to give the account and stated it has sold it. No notice is served on the complainant before alleged auction. As the value of the gold increased, to knock it of this auction is created.
2. In brief the version of the OP are:
Pledging of the gold, sanctioning of the gold, are all admitted. As the complainant has failed to clear the loan, notice was issued and it was sold and appropriated.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their affidavit and documents. The arguments were heard.
4. The point that arise for our consideration are
A) Whether there is deficiency in service?
B) What order?
5. Our anwers are
A) Positive
B) As per the detailed order for the following
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record it is an admitted fact that the complainant had pledged his gold jewellary of 20.600 gms on 20.10.2008 obtained a loan of Rs.14,500/- and pledged 29,500 gms of gold jewellary on 04.11.2008 and obtained a loan of Rs.21,500 from the OP. The complainant agreed to repay the same with interest at 17% pm. It is also established that no amount has been repaid to the OP by the complainant.
7. According to the OP it has sold the said jewellary in public auction. There is no material to show that the said gold jewellary is sold in public auction on a particular day. There is no material to show who bid in that auction, to what amount bid in that action, on what day, for what amount it was adjusted to the loan account did not stated. Who all bid and who purchased is also not stated.
8. Further there is no document to show that pre sale notice as contemplated under pawn brokers act was issued to the complaint in this regard. The OP has produced a notice dated 10.07.2010 addressed by approved auctioner. There is no document to show that this notice was issued to the complainant and he received it. The OP has produced copy of a postal receipt to show certain matters were dispatched on 10.07.2010. It does not say that the OP has issued pre sale notice to the complainant regarding this jewellary, he received it, there is no acknowledgement.
9. Further the OP has produced the copy of the Samyukta Karnataka daily, dated 21.07.2010. This does not say that it is a notice issued to the complainant regarding sale of his jewellary. This notice was issued by another branch of the OP, behind R.T.Nagar and it is not the OP who has issued notice. Even this notice is not with respect to the complainant or his gold jewellary.
10. OP has produced another paper cutting which states that the Lingarajapuram town branch and behind R.T.Nagar, Muthoot finance has issued notice. It is not the OP that has issued notice. Hence there is no valid pre sale notice that was issued.
11. There is no document to show that the gold in question is sold in auction to anybody. That means the OP have to gain the value of the gold have claimed that they sold the gold, this is deficiency in service.
12. Now we have to see what is the order that has to be posted. Admittedly as on day the value of the gold is Rs.2,800/- per gram. The complainant had pledged 56.100 grams with the OP in all. The value of which as on date comes to Rs.1,57,080/-. Only to gain this value the OP had denied to return the gold as rightly contended.
13. In any event the complainant is liable to pay Rs.14,500/- with interest at 17% per annum from 20.10.2008 uptodate and has to pay Rs.21,500/- with interest at 17% per annum from 04.11.2008 for three years. Hence as on date the complainant has to pay Rs.21,865/- to the first pleadge/loan and Rs.32,165/- towards the 2nd pledge that is Rs.54,220/- in all. Taking the other months interest it comes to 1,02,860/-.
14. Taking all these into account and interest part thereon it round of the said amount to Rs.1 lakh to be payable by the OP, we think that will meet the ends justice hence we hold the points accordingly and pass the following
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP directed to pay to the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 12% pm until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of this litigation to the complainant.
4. OPs are directed to send the amount as ordered at No. 2 and 3 above to the complainant by DD through RPAD and submit to this Forum a compliance report within 45 days from the date of this Order.
5. Return the extra sets to the concerned parties as under regulation 20(3) of the consumer Protection Regulation 2005.
6. Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 26thday of November 2011.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
