Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

250/2006

S.V.S.Rama Prakash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muthoot FinCorp Ltd.,Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

T.Ramkumar

17 May 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 23.02.2006

                                                                          Date of Order : 17.05.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.250/2006

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 17^TH DAY OF MAY 2019

                                 

Mr. S.V.S. Rama Prakash alias Prakash. M,

S/o. Late Mr. M. Venkatasubbaiah,

No.8/79, 1^st Floor,

1^st Main Road, M.R. Nagar,

Kodungaiyur,

Chennai – 600 118.                                                        .. Complainant.                                             

 

          ..Versus..

 

1.  Muthoot Fincorp Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

No.113, (56/1), Amman Complex,

Arunachalam Street,

Chintadripet,

Chennai – 600 002.

 

2. Mr. Ujwal Singh Mehta, 

Residing / Carrying on business at:-

No.46, Egmore High Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.

 

3. Mrs. Nirmala Mehta,

Residing / Carrying on business at:-

No.46, Egmore High Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.                                                ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                 : M/s. T. Ramkumar

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party        : M/s. M. Aravind Kumar &

                                                                 another

Counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 : M/s. K. Balakrishnan &   

                                                                 another

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

 

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to return all the pledged jewels worth about Rs.5,53,500/- more particularly described in the schedule and to pay a sum of Rs.5,35,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for business loss, mental agony, untold hardship suffered by the complainant and unfair trade practice with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he is carrying on the business of manufacturing Gold, Diamond and Silver Ornaments through several Goldsmiths and other persons in and around Chennai based on bulk/separate job orders placed by Jeweller and other persons for the past 20 years including 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties for the past 4 years.  Further the complainant states that the 1^st opposite party is a pawn broker lured the general public by advertisement of attractive rate of interest on pledging the jewels.  So, the complainant pledged his jewels and customers’ jewels on several occasions obtained loan from the opposite party for a loan amount/s of Rs.1,84,500/- as detailed in the legal notice dated:16.01.2006 was sent the opposite party viz

Details of Jewels Pledged

S. No.  & Date             Loan No.             Loan Amount              Value

1.    29.03.2004          S 2458               1,12,500/-                 2,25,000/-

2.    29.03.2004          S 2457               67,500/-                    1,35,000/-

3.    08.05.2004          F 295                 4,500/-                      9,000/-

                                              

                        Total                    1,84,500/-                             3,69,000/-

The complainant submits that while pledging the jewels, the 1^st opposite party issued receipts and assured that on repayment of loan with 18% simple interest for pledged jewels will be returned.   The complainant submits that on 26.11.2004, his hand bag containing all the loan receipts issued by the opposite party including papers other vouchers related to the pledged jewels were stolen by break opening of his Bajaj scooter lock when it was parked in front of Mr. Ujjwal Mehta and Nirmala Mehta, the opposite parties 2 & 3 residence.   Immediately, the complainant lodged a police complaint before F2 Police Station, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.  Since the police has not registered the case, the complainant lodged several complaints before the Commissioner of Police, Superintendent of Police etc.    At long last, CSR was issued on 19.07.2005 for said compliant by the Police Department.  On 01.04.2005, the police authority gave a letter and the same was not traceable till date.  The complainant submits that he informed the fact of theft to the 1^st opposite party orally and instructed the 1^st opposite party not to return the jewels to any other persons and issued legal notice to the 1^st opposite party dated:01.08.2005 asking the 1^st opposite party to furnish the statement of account with respect to aforesaid pledged jewels and keep ready for redemption but no reply from the 1^st opposite party.  Hence, the complainant issued further legal notice dated: 16.01.2006 to furnish copy of Authorisation letter to the 1^st opposite party and another legal notice to the Muthoot Finance dated:24.01.2016 to return the pledged jewels for which, the Muthoot Finance sent a reply dated:28.01.2006.  The complainant sent rejoinder notice to the 1^st opposite party dated:06.02.2006.  The complainant submits that he came to know that the opposite party handed over the jewels pledged by the complainant to the staffs of the opposite parties 2 & 3 by forging the authorisation letters for which also, the complainant lodged a criminal complaint.  The complainant submits that the 1^st opposite party in collusion with the opposite parties 2 & 3 failed to furnish the details of the pledged jewels and not allowed the complainant for redemption.  The complainant submits that the complainant has not appointed anybody to a redeem the jewels pledged for a total sum of Rs.1,84,500/-.   The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 1^st opposite party states that they are the Pawn Broker – Cum – Bankers and incorporated as Muthoot Fin-Corporation Ltd. from 01.04.2004.   The 1^st opposite party states that the complainant was introduced to the 1^st opposite party through the authorization letters given by the owner of T.C. Gajaraj Mehtha and company as their staff while pledging the jewels with the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party states that the jewels were pledged by Mr. Prakash as staff of T.C. Gajraj Mehta and Company.    The 1^st opposite party states that the receipt given for the pledging of jewels and payment of receipt were produced by the other co-staff of T.C. Gajraj Mehta and company redeemed the jewels.  The 1^st opposite party states that the authorized persons of T.C. Gajraj Mehta Company  has produced all the receipts which said to be stolen / thefted from the complainant herein and redeemed the pledged jewels on 30.11.2004.   There is no basis to collude with T.C. Gajraj and Company by the 1^st opposite party and there is no unfair trade practice by the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party states that as per the authorization letter given by T.C. Gajraj and Company and by the complainant herein and after production of the receipts, the 1^st opposite party handed over the pledged jewels to the opposite parties 2 & 3. The complainant is trying to grab money unlawfully from the 1^st opposite party and the complaint has been filed against the 1^st opposite party with false claim. The contract is only between the T.C. Gajaraj and Company and the 1^st opposite party for pledging of jewels.  The complainant did not take any immediate action for his loss of receipts and also has not intimated the same in writing to the 1^st opposite party.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 2 & 3 is as follows:

The opposite parties 2 & 3 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.      The opposite parties 2 & 3 state that they used to pledge their jewels for nominal interest with the 1^st opposite party for the purpose of their jewellery business and they are carrying on the business in the name and style of “Ujwal Jewellery”.  The complainant sometimes used to visit the opposite parties 2 & 3 residence and canvass that whether the opposite parties 2 & 3 wanted any Gold ornaments from the complainant thereby, he became the staff of the 2^nd opposite party.  The item of jewels referred in the complaint were handed over to the complainant to repledge the same with the 1^st opposite party pawn broker shop, accordingly, the complainant repledged the following jewels with the 1^st opposite party.

Sl. No.	Date	Loan No.	Amount
1.	29.03.2004	S. 2458	Rs.1,12,500/-
2.	29.03.2004	S. 2457	Rs.   67,500/-
3.	08.05.2004	F. 295	Rs.     4,500/-

 

For the total value of Rs.1,84,500/- the above jewels are belongs to the opposite parties 2 & 3 the said jewels were repledged by the opposite parties 2 & 3 through the complainant.   The complainant as staff of the opposite parties 2 & 3 had taken the above jewels and repledged the same with the 1^st opposite party.   The original receipts were handed over by the complainant then and there to the opposite parties 2 & 3.   Therefore, jewels referred to in the complaint is not belongs to the complainant and the complainant was not the owner of the above jewels as alleged in the complaint.  The opposite parties 2 & 3 denied the alleged theft was happened in front of the opposite parties 2 & 3’ house when the complainant parked his scooter in front of the opposite parties’ house.    The opposite parties do not know about the alleged police complaint given by the complainant on 26.11.2004 to the F-2, Police Station.  The above complaint was a false complaint given by the complainant before the F2 Police Station and therefore, the F-2 Police has not made any investigation.  The opposite parties 2 & 3 state that they do not know whether the complainant sent a legal notice dated:01.08.2005 asking the 1^st opposite party to furnish the statement of accounts and another legal notices dated:16.01.2006, 24.01.2006 & 25.01.2006 to the 1^st opposite party and the reply given by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  There is no need for the complainant to sent the aforesaid legal notices to the 1^st opposite party since the aforesaid jewels are belongs to the opposite parties 2 & 3 and the original receipts for pledging  the jewels were already handed over to the opposite parties 2 & 3. 

5.     The opposite parties 2 & 3 state that the complainant has given authorization to another staff of the opposite parties 2 & 3 one Praveen Kumar and Kuppusamy to redeem the jewels.   Then, the opposite parties 2 & 3 with the above authorization and the original receipts had redeemed the jewels from the 1^st opposite party.   It is further submitted that the complainant is not the owner of the jewels referred in the complaint.   The opposite parties 2 & 3  state that the complainant as the staff of the opposite parties 2 & 3 has given an authorization to the other staffs namely; Praveen Kumar and Kuppusamy to redeem the jewels.   Since, the opposite parties 2 & 3 were already having the original receipts with them, the jewels were redeemed from the 1^st opposite party in the proper manner.  Hence, there is no collusion between the opposite parties 1 to 3 in redeeming the jewels.  It is no where stated in the complaint that the complainant has made any attempt personally with the 1^st opposite party to redeem the jewels.  The complainant has not paid any interest fo the jewels to the 1^st opposite party and further the complainant is not entitled for the sum of Rs.5,53,500/- being the value of the pledged jewels.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 2 & 3 and the complaint against the opposite parties 2 & 3 is liable to be dismissed.

6.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A19 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.  In spite of sufficient time is given, the opposite parties 2 & 3 has not filed their proof affidavit within the stipulated time and hence, the evidence on the side of the opposite parties 2 & 3 is closed.

7.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get return of the jewels pledged worth about Rs.5,53,500/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for damages, business loss, mental agony etc with cost as prayed for?

8.      On point:-

        The complainant filed his written argument.  The opposite parties has not filed any written argument and not turned up to advance any oral argument.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   The complainant pleaded and contended that he is carrying on the business of manufacturing Gold, Diamond and Silver Ornaments through several Goldsmiths and other persons in and around Chennai based on bulk/separate job orders placed by Jeweller and other persons for the past 20 years including 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties for the past 4 years.  The 1^st opposite party is a pawn broker lured the general public by advertisement of attractive rate of interest on pledging the jewels.  So, the complainant pledged his jewels and customers’ jewels on several occasions obtained loan from the opposite party for a loan amount/s of Rs.1,84,500/- as detailed in the legal notice dated:16.01.2006 as per Ex.A13 sent to the opposite party viz

Details of Jewels Pledged

S. No.  & Date             Loan No.             Loan Amount              Value

1.    29.03.2004          S 2458               1,12,500/-                 2,25,000/-

2.    29.03.2004          S 2457               67,500/-                    1,35,000/-

3.    08.05.2004          F 295                 4,500/-                      9,000/-

                                             

                        Total                    1,84,500/-                             3,69,000/-

Further the contention of the complainant is that while pledging the jewels, the 1^st opposite party issued receipts and assured that on repayment of loan with 18% simple interest for pledged jewels will be returned. 

9.     Further the contention of the complainant is that on 26.11.2004, his hand bag containing all the loan receipts issued by the opposite party including papers other vouchers related to the pledged jewels were stolen by break opening of his Bajaj scooter lock when it was parked in front of Mr. Ujjwal Mehta and Nirmala Mehta, the opposite parties 2 & 3 residence.  Immediately, the complainant lodged a police complaint before F2 Police Station, Egmore as per Ex.A5.  Since the police has not registered the case, the complainant lodged several complaints before the Commissioner of Police and Superintendent of Police etc as per Ex.A6.    At long last, CSR was issued on 19.07.2005 as per Ex.A7 and the same is not traceable till date.   Further the contention of the complainant is that he informed the fact of theft to the 1^st opposite party orally and instructed not to return the jewels to any other persons and issued legal notice to the 1^st opposite party dated:01.08.2005 as per Ex.A9 asking the 1^st opposite party to furnish the statement of account with respect to aforesaid pledged jewels and keep ready for redemption but no reply from the 1^st opposite party.  Hence, the complainant issued further legal notice dated: 16.01.2006 as per Ex.A13 to furnish copy of Authorisation letter to the 1^st opposite party and another legal notice to the Muthoot Finance as per Ex.A14 dated:24.01.2016 to return the pledged jewels for which, the Muthoot Finance sent a reply dated:28.01.2006 as per Ex.A15.   The complainant sent rejoinder notice to the 1^st opposite party dated:06.02.2006 as per Ex.A16.   Further the contention of the complainant is that he came to know that the opposite party handed over the jewels pledged by the complainant to the staffs of the opposite parties 2 & 3 through forged authorisation letters.  For which also, the complainant lodged a criminal complaint but no complaint copy filed before this Forum.  The 1^st opposite party in collusion with the opposite parties 2 & 3 failed to furnish the details of the pledged jewels and not allowed the complainant for redemption.  But on a careful perusal of the records, except Ex.A2, Ex.A3 & Ex.A4, no other documents produced by the complainant for the alleged pledging of jewels before this Forum.  

10.    Further the contention of the complainant is that the complainant has not appointed anybody to a redeem the jewels pledged for a total sum of Rs.1,84,500/-.   But the complainant has produced Ex.A2, Ex.A3 & Ex.A4 of proof that he has pledged the jewels worth Rs.1,84,500/-.  The value of jewels mishandled by the opposite party is Rs.5,53,500/-.  The copy of FIR is marked as Ex.A19. The complainant filed this case claiming for return of jewels worth Rs.5,53,500/-.  But on a careful perusal of the records, the complainant has not produced any document to prove the value of jewels.  But the complainant has not stated in detail about the jewels and its ownership.   Equally, the complainant has not come forward to deposit the loan amount with interest proves that the allegations of jewels pledged and theft of loan receipts, all other vouchers, papers regarding the pledged jewels and its value are imaginary.   Further the defaulter (i.e.) default in repayment of loan not entitled any relief.

11.    The contention of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is that the 1^st opposite party is a pawn broker cum Bankers and incorporated as Muthoot Fin. Corporation Ltd from 01.04.2004 of pawn brokering.   Further the contention the 1^st opposite party is that the complainant was introduced to the 1^st opposite party by the owner of T.C. Gajraj Mehtha and company through authorization letter to pledge gold jewels with the 1^st opposite party but never pledged to the tune of Rs.1,84,500/- as alleged in the complainant and notice dated:16.01.2006 as per Ex.A13.  This opposite party issued suitable reply notice on 30.01.2006 as per Ex.A16.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that after the receipt of notice dated:16.01.2006 & 24.01.2006 as per Ex.A13 & Ex.A14 respectively suitable reply sent by opposite party dated:28.01.2006 as per Ex.A15 which was returned by the complainant with postal endorsement as ‘refused’.  

12.    Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that on verification of the entire records, it was found that the complainant had pledged jewels under the following three Invoices:

S.No.                             Bill No.               Date                    Amount in Rs.

1.                     S. 2458              29.03.2004         1,12,500/- 

2.                     S. 2457              29.03.2004         67,500/-

3.                     S. 295               08.05.2004         4,500/-

as per Ex.A2 to Ex.A4.   Even after repeated reminders and demands, the complainant has not paid any amount towards jewel loan obtained with interest and not inclined to redeem the jewels.   Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that regarding loss/ theft of receipt, the complainant has not given any intimation to the 1^st opposite party in writing and objection to the 1^st opposite party not to redeem the jewels by the opposite parties 2 & 3.  Moreover, the complainant has not produced any document that he is the owner of the jewels before this Forum.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that because the original receipt for pledged jewels and the payment receipts was with the opposite parties 2 & 3 they redeemed the jewels from the 1^st opposite party.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the above jewels were pledged by the complainant with the 1^st opposite party on behalf of the opposite parties 2 & 3.  Hence, there is no collusion and clandestine manner between the opposite parties 1, 2 & 3 in redeeming the jewels, since the opposite parties 2 & 3 produced receipt of the pledged jewels and the 1^st opposite party has handed over the jewels to them.   Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the allegation that the jewels worth Rs.1,84,500/- is absolutely false and the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence in this case.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party has no privity of contract  with the complainant. 

13.    The contention of the opposite parties 2 & 3 is that the they used to send the complainant along with one Kuppusamy, Kavel Chand and Praveen Kumar to pledge the customer jewels with the 1^st opposite party / the complainant suppressed the said material facts and styled in different manner.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 2 & 3 is that the incident alleged by the complainant in front of the opposite parties’ 2 & 3 residence is a concocted one and imaginary.  The police never questioned the opposite parties 2 & 3.  The opposite parties 2 & 3 have no knowledge regarding the allegation of police complaint.  Further the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to prove that he is the owner of the pledged jewels.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 17^th day of May 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	24.07.2004	Copy of authorisation letter
Ex.A2	30.09.2004	Copy of Muthoots’ notice
Ex.A3	30.09.2004	Copy of Muthoots’ notice
Ex.A4	09.11.2004	Copy of Muthoots’ notice
Ex.A5	26.11.2004	Copy of complaint of theft
Ex.A6	01.04.2005	Copy of complaint
Ex.A7	19.07.2005	Copy of CSR
Ex.A8	01.08.2005	Copy of complaint against the opposite parties 2 & 3
Ex.A9	01.08.2005	Copy of legal notice to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A10	12.08.2005	Copy of complaint against the 1st opposite party
Ex.A11	12.08.2005	Copy of complaint against Vijaya & Co
Ex.A12	18.08.2005	Copy of letter from EOW II
Ex.A13	16.01.2006	Copy of legal notice to Muthoot
Ex.A14	24.01.2006	Copy of legal notice to Muthoot
Ex.A15	28.01.2006	Copy of reply
Ex.A16	06.02.2006	Copy of rejoinder
Ex.A17	09.04.2007	Copy of High Court’s Direction
Ex.A18	20.04.2007	Copy of complaint
Ex.A19	26.07.2007	Copy of FIR

 

1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:- NIL

OPPOSITE PARTIES 2 & 3 SIDE DOCUMENTS:- Evidence closed

 

 

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT