Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/116/2018

M/s. MUTHOOT fINANCE lIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

P. Ashok Kumar S/o. Pandian - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. T. Muruganantham

21 Feb 2023

ORDER

     

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH    :     PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R  VENKATESAPERUMAL           :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 116 of 2018

[Against the order passed in C.C. No.16 of 2015 dated 23.03.2018 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Chennai (North)].

 

Tuesday, the 21st day of February 2023

 

 

M/s. Muthoot Finance Limited

Rep. by its Branch Manager

No.200 M.T.H. Road                                  

Villivakkam

Chennai   600 049.                                            .. Appellant/

                                                                                Opposite party

 

 Vs 

P. Ashok Kumar

S/o. Pandian

No.91, 10th Street

Thirumal Nagar

Surapet Main Road

Kolathur, Chennai 49.                                        .. Respondent /

                                                                                 Complainant

   

  Counsel for Appellant/Opposite Party :  M/s.T.Muruganandam

 

  Counsel for the Respondent/

                                    Complainant  :  M/s. R. Thanjan

                                                       

 

        This appeal has come before us for final hearing today, on 21.02.2023 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

 

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT [Open Court]

 

        1.     This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 23.03.2018 passed in C.C.No.16 of 2015, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North),  allowing the complaint filed by the respondent herein. 

 

           2.  The Appellant herein is the Opposite Party and the Respondent is the Complainant.  For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their ranking before the District Forum.

 

           3.    The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows:  The Complainant had availed jewel loan from the opposite party by pledging the following jewels:

1. Necklace  1 No.                      16.90 gms.
2. Chain with dollar   1 No.           7.10 gms.
3. Rings   3 Nos.                        11.30 gms.
4. Matti   2 Nos.                           2.00 gms.

Thereafter, on 18.12.2013, the complainant went to the opposite party to redeem the jewels by paying the loan and interest.  At the time of redeeming the jewels, the following variations were found in the weight of the jewels:-

1. Necklace  1 No.                      16.80 gms.
2. Chain with dollar   1 No.          7.00 gms.
3. Rings   3 Nos.                         11.20 gms.

Thus, the complainant found the jewels 30 gms. lesser than the original weight.  Therefore, the complainant demanded clarifications from the opposite party.  But the official of the opposite party neither clarified nor paid any amount towards the difference of weight in the jewels.  Instead, they gave a letter on the same date, confirming the variation of 30 gms. in the weight of the jewels but stating that they would forward the letter of the complainant to their head office and on receipt of information, they would advise the complainant.  The complainant had pledged the jewels with a hope that he would receive back the jewels without any damage or less weight at the time of redemption.  But, to the complainant's shock and surprise, he had received back the jewels with lesser weight of 0.30 gms.  Therefore, claiming the value of 0.30 gms of jewels and also a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages, the complainant issued a legal notice on 18.05.2014.  But the opposite party has not responded the said notice.  Hence, the complainant has come forward with the complaint, seeking the following directions to the opposite party:

1. to pay a sum of Rs.811.50 being the value of 0.30 gms of jewels or a jewel weighing 0.30 gms; and
2. to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/  as compensation towards deficiency of service, mental agony and torture caused by the opposite party to the complainant;  

 

        4.  The said complaint was resisted by the opposite party filing a written version stating that at the time of receiving the jewels the opposite party found some dust and dirt in the jewels and requested the complainant to bring the jewels after cleaning the dust and dirt.  Since the complainant was in urgent need of money, the complainant did not have time to go home and remove the dirt and dust in the jewels.  Considering the urgent need of money by the complainant, the opposite party had weighed the jewels with dust and dirt.  However, the opposite party had informed the complainant that later there might be a possibility of difference in the weight of the jewels due to the presence of dust and dirt.  The complainant also agreed for the same at the time of pledging the jewels and received the money. On 18.12.2013, while redeeming the jewels, the complainant found that there was a difference of weight to the tune of 0.10 gms in each jewellery, totalling 0.30 gms in 3 jewels.  The difference is very meagre and negligible.  Further, while weighing the jewels in the weighing machine without closing the door of the weighing machine, there is a possibility of disturbance of air.  Absolutely, there is no mark or evidence that gold is removed or scratched from the jewels.  Further, the complainant had pledged another set of jewels with the opposite party and due to default in payment, the opposite party initiated proceedings for bringing the jewels for auction.  At that time, without repaying the dues the complainant requested the opposite party to stop the auction.  The opposite party conveyed their inability to stop the auction without receiving payment and hence the jewels were sold in auction.  Since the jewels were auctioned by the opposite party, in order to wreck vengeance and harass the opposite party, the complainant had filed the present complaint.  Absolutely there is no deficiency of service and sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

        5.  In order to prove the case, both the parties have filed their proof affidavits and on the side of the complainant, 5 documents have been marked as Exhibits A1 to A5 but no documents were marked on the side of the opposite party.  

 

        6.  After analyzing the entire evidence on record, the District Forum had come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the side of the opposite party and thus directed them to pay a sum of Rs.812/- towards the value of the lesser weight of the jewels to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.  Aggrieved over the same the present appeal has been filed by the opposite party.

 

        7.  There is no representation for the counsel for the respondent/ complainant.  Heard the submission of the counsel appearing for the appellant/ Opposite party and perused the entire material available on records. 

 

               

          8.  It is the case of the respondent/ complainant that he had pledged gold jewels weighing about 37.30 gms.  At the time of redemption of jewels, there was variation in the weight of the jewels.  He had received the jewels with lesser weight of 0.30 gms.  Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  But, it is the reply of the opposite party that at the time pledging, they found dirt and dust in the jewel and hence the complainant was asked to remove the same and handover the jewels to the opposite party for weighing.  Though the complainant failed to do so, the opposite party by receiving the jewels had disbursed the loan amount.  But at the time of redemption, when the jewels were weighed there was a shortage of 0.30 gms., which is very meager and negligent.  The reason for variation in the weight at the time of pledging the jewels is that the complainant has not removed the dirt and dust from the jewels.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and hence, prayed to set aside the order of the District Forum.

 

                9.  However, this explanation given by the opposite party cannot be accepted, in the absence of tangible proof to show that the difference of 0.30 gms in the weight of the jewels was only due to dirt and dust.  The explanation given by the opposite party is illusionary. Further, the opposite party had submitted that only because they had sold the jewels in auction in respect of the other loan, to wreck vengeance, the present complaint has been filed.  But we are of the opinion when the opposite party themselves are not assertively denying the difference of 0.30 gm in the weight of the jewels, the contention made by the opposite party that only to wreck vengeance the complainant has filed the present complaint cannot be accepted.  Therefore, the District Forum had correctly negatived the submission of the counsel for the opposite party and directed to pay the compensation.  We do not find any valid reasons to interfere with the said reasonable order of the District Forum.  This Commission is not inclined to accept the submissions of the opposite party, in the absence of any tangible evidence.

 

                10.  In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order dated 23.03.2018 passed in C.C. No.16 of 2015 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), is confirmed.  No order as to costs. 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                       R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/February/2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F.A. No. 116 of 2018

HON’BLE  THIRU

JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT

   In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order dated 23.03.2018 passed in C.C. No.16 of 2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), is confirmed.  No order as to costs. 

                                                     

MEMBER               PRESIDENT

  21.02.2023              21.02.2023