Kerala

Idukki

CC/90/2022

Luiose T C - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nedumparambil Credit Syndicate - Opp.Party(s)

22 Dec 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 2.6.2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 22^nd day of December, 2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.90/2022

Between

Complainant                                           :   Luiose T.C., S/o. Chacko,

                                                                 Thazhathedathu House,

                                                                  Upputhodu, Idukki.

       (By Adv: K.S. Cyriac)

And

Opposite Parties                                     :  1.  Nedumparambil Credit Syndicate,

                                                                     Near K.S. R.T.C. Bus Station,

                                                                   Thiruvalla – 689 101.

       2. The Manager,

                                                                   Nedumparambil Credit Syndicate,

                                                                   Paickanattu Building,

                                                                   Muttam P.O., Thodupuzha.

 (Both by Adv: Lissy M.M.)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short). Complaint’s averments are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

Complainant had pledged gold ornaments weighing 16 gms, on 3.11.2020 with Thodupuzha branch(2^nd Opposite Party) of 1^st opposite party, a private finance company and availed a loan of Rs.56,000/- for one year, with interest at the rate of 14% per annum.  2^nd opposite party branch is represented by its manager.  On 3.11.2021, complainant had renewed the pledge by remitting Rs.10,000/-.  While so, he had received a notice sent by 2^nd opposite party demanding payment of entire loan amount on or before 14.5.2022 with interest and to redeem the pledge.  Notice only mentions an amount of Rs.56,000/- without showing what is the principal and amount of interest levied on the same.  Opposite parties have no right to seek redemption of pledge before 3.11.2022.  Demand of redemption made before expiry of pledge period is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties, which had caused much inconvenience and mental agony to complainant.  He therefore prays for a direction against opposite parties from not taking any steps towards recovery of loan before 3.11.2022 and also for awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service.  He also prays for litigation costs.                                                                                           (cont…2)

• 2  -

2.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 have entered appearance and filed a joint written version.  Their contentions  are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

According to opposite parties, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition.  Complaint is only abuse of process of law.  1^st opposite party is a business firm having its head office at Thiruvalla and 2^nd opposite party is its branch office at Thodupuzha.  On 3.11.2020, complainant had pledged gold ornaments weighing 16 gms, for Rs.56,000/-, for a period of 1 year.  Rate of interest is 18% per annum and not 14% as alleged by complainant. It is incorrect to say that the pledge was renewed.  However, on 3.11.2021, complainant had paid Rs.10,000/- instead of total interest due which comes to Rs.12,000/-.  There was only part payment and therefore pledge was not renewed.  Further allegations that a notice was issued to complainant seeking payment of entire loan amount with interest or to renew gold loan before 14.5.2022 are partially correct.  Every aspect with regard to gold loan, like total amount due, interest charged were informed to complainant.  A letter was sent to complainant by ordinary post on 8.4.2022, then registered letter on 28.4.2022 and by another registered letter with AD on 17.5.2022, explaining the terms.  Opposite parties are entitled to sent notice to complainant demanding renewal of gold loan or to redeem the pledge.  Complainant has no right to get the pledge period extended for Rs.54,000/- with interest at the rate of 14%.  All documents pertaining to the loan were signed by complainant when the loan was availed by him after fully understanding its terms and conditions.  There is no deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties.  Opposite parties are engaged in finance business with valid license issued under Kerala Money Lenders Act 1958.  Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for.  Complaint is to be dismissed with costs. 

 

3.  After filing of written version, case was posted for steps and then for evidence.  On 10.10.2022, 8.11.2022 and finally on 13.12.2022, the dates when case  was posted for evidence.Complainant had remained absent on all these dates.  There was no representation for complainant on 8.11.2022 and 13.12.2022.  Therefore, we were constrained to proceed with the matter in the absence of complainant, that is on 13.12.2022, last date when case was posted for evidence.  Ext.P1, copy of notice produced by himwas marked.  Since no evidence was tendered apart from Ext.P1 notice, opposite party have not tendered any evidence.  Therefore evidence was closed.  We have heard learned counsel for opposite party.  Now the point which arise for consideration are :

1) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2)  Final order and costs ?

 

                                                                                                                   (cont….3)

 

 

 

- 3  -

4.  Point No.1:

 

          According to complainant, he had renewed the pledge on 3.11.2021, after paying Rs.10,000/-, which according to complainant, was the amount sufficient for renewal.  No documents were produced to substantiate this aspect.  Opposite parties have not admitted this fact either.  According to them, total interest for one year would come to Rs.12,000/-.  Renewal can be only upon payment of entire interest due for 1 year.  Though opposite parties would admit that complainant had paid Rs.10,000/-, this payment would only amount  to part payment and hence there is no renewal of the loan.  Since it is not proved that there was renewal of loan, we are of the view that sending of Ext.P1 was not premature or inappropriate.  Admittedly, loan amount is Rs.54,000/- and according to opposite parties, interest due for the previous year which remained unpaid was Rs.2000/-.  Demand for renewal of the loan by payment of Rs.56,000/- or in the alternate for redemption of pledge after settling the loan appears to be within the rights of opposite parties.  There is no evidence to prove that there was  deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 

 

5. Point No.2 :

 

          In the result, this petition is dismissed, under the circumstances, with cost of Rs.2,000/- each , payable to opposite parties 1 and 2.  Parties shall take back extra copies without delay. 

 

                     Pronounced by this Commission on this the  22^nd   day of December, 2022

 

                                                                                                Sd/-

        SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                      Sd/-

        SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                             Sd/-

     SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1     -  Copy of notice issued by opposite party.

On the side of the Opposite Party :                                      Forwarded by Order,

Nil.

 

                                                                                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR