IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 29th day of November, 2010
Filed on 06.07.2010
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.140/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
P.P.Rejimon The Proprietor
Puthupparambil Aswas Financiers
Muhamma P.O. Muhamma P.O.
Cherthala Cherthala
By Adv.K.B. Anil Kumar) (By Adv. P.V.Thomas)
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri.P.P.Rejimon has filed this complaint on 6.7.2010 before the Forum. The main allegations of the complainant are as follows:- He had availed a loan of Rs.4000/- on 5.12.2007 and further availed a loan of Rs.12,000/- on 17.12.2007 from the opposite party by pledging 25.200 grams gold sovereign as security. At the time of availing the loan, the opposite party issued receipt (Pawnee Ticket) to him. The agreed rate of interest was @ 6% and opposite party agreed to give back the ornaments, when the loan repaid by him. He had paid interest without default. Before the expiry of the loan period the opposite party extended the duration on his request. He approached the opposite party on several times to get back the ornaments after payment. The opposite party was charged exorbitant amount. The opposite party had not furnished a copy of the statement to him, and he had calculated the amount arbitrarily and without any basis. Hence this complaint seeking relief.
2. Notice was issued to the parties. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
3. In the version the opposite party has stated that the complainant had only a Pawner – Pawnee relationship with them and that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and admitted the pledge for obtaining the loan amount by the complainant. It is stated that the allegations of the complainant regarding the rate of interest was 18% and not 6% as alleged and that the complainant had not approached them for taking the pledge item. The complainant had not paid the interest properly. They had taken steps to auction the item and it was not cheating the complainant in any way. It is stated that they had paid amount at the rate of Rs.600/- per grams. They have intimated the auction proceedings to the complainant on several times. The market rate shown for the ornaments stated by the complainant is not true. The complainant had not demanded any statement of a/c from them. It is further stated that they have issued auction notice to the complainant in time. But the complainant had not remitted any amount in time. It is stated that they have obtained permission from the Asst. Commissioner, Sales Tax to auction the item and they have published the details of auction through news paper and It is further stated that they have postponed the auction steps on the basis of the interim order of this Forum. It is stated that they are eligible to get an additional interest of 2% over and above the bank rate. Earlier the complainant had paid 18% interest for two loans availed from them and closed that account. There was no deficiency in service on their part.
3. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get back the pledged item after remitting
the amount with reasonable rate of interest?
3) Compensation and costs.
4. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his case and produced documents in evidence – Exts.A1 and A2, and he has been examined as PW1 and cross examined him by the opposite party. Documents marked – Ext.A1 is the Pawnee ticket issued by the opposite party at the time of pledging the same on 5.12.2007. The receipt shows that the item was 6/200 gram gold. The amount issued was Rs.4000/-. Ext.A2 is the Pawnee ticket issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 17.12.2007. It shows the amount released was Rs.12,000/- and the pledged item was 19 gram gold. The Exts.A1 and A2 are silent with regard to the rate of interest charged.
5. Opposite party has filed proof affidavit and produced documents in evidence and he has been cross examined by the complainant. The documents marked as Exts.B1 to B10. Ext.B1 is the registered letter addressed to the complainant. Ext.B2 is the registered letter addressed to the complainant by the opposite party. Ext.B3 is the acknowledgement card. Ext.B4 is the order of the Asst. Commissioner, Sales Tax issued to the opposite party. Ext.B5 is the notice dt. 18.6.10 issued to the complainant by the opposite party. Ext.B6 is the New Paper – Kerala Kaumudi. Ext.B7 is the receipt for Rs.3008/- issued from the office of the paper. Ext.B8 is the receipt dt. 18.6.10 issued by M/s. Deepa Printers to the opposite party. Exts.B9 and B10 are the receipts dt. 6.7.2011 issued by the opposite party in connection with the expenses for the installation of Boards.
6. We have carefully examined the entire matter of this case and verified the documents produced by both parties in evidence and perused the depositions of both parties. In order to avail a sum of Rs.4000/- and Rs.12,000/-, the complainant had pledged gold ornaments having 25.200 grams before the opposite party. The Pawnee receipts issued by the opposite party at the time of pledging the ornaments is silent with regard to the rate of interest changed by the opposite party for the said loan. The allegations of the complainant is that he had contacted the opposite party several times in order to get back the pledged item after closing the loan amount. But the opposite party demanded exorbitant amounts after calculating higher rate of interest. The complainant further alleged that the agreed rate of interest was only 6%. The opposite party had not furnished any statement of a/c to the complainant, showing the principal amount and the rate of interest changed for the said loan. The complainant could not obtained the pledged item of gold ornaments due to the dispute of the rate of interest charged by the opposite party. Ext.A1 and A2 documents is silent with regard to the rate of interest. So the opposite party is not entitled to get exorbitant rate of interest from the complainant, since the rate of interest was not specifically shown in the pledge receipts. On verification of the documents produced by the opposite party, we are of the view that the opposite party is not entitled to deny the release of the pledged item to the complainant. In this matter, after taking the evidence of both parties into account, we are of the further view that the opposite party has no right to auction the pledged item without allowing the complainant to close the account with charging reasonable rate of interest. The auction proceedings taken by the opposite party are highly arbitrary and it is against the principle of natural justice. The whole proceedings shows that there is no bona fides on the side of the opposite party. The complainant is entitled to get back the items after remitting the loan amount with reasonable rate of interest. So after taking the entire aspects of this case, we are of the further view that the steps taken by the opposite party are highly unauthorized. So, for a fair adjudication of this matter, the complaint is to be allowed. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, we hereby direct the opposite party to issue a detailed statement of a/c to the complainant after charging 12% interest only per annum to the said amounts from the date of the loans, up to the date of filing of this complainant (6.7.2010) and returned the gold ornaments having the 25.200 grams and allow him to close the account. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not directing the opposite party to pay any compensation or costs to the complainant by the opposite party.
Complaint allowed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of November, 2010.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Pawnee ticket issued by the opposite party dtd. 5.12.07
Ext.A2 - Pawnee ticket issued by the opposite party dtd. 17.12.07
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - P.M. Sadanandan (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Registered letter addressed to the complainant
Ext.B2 - Registered letter addressed to the complainant by the
Opposite party.
Ext.B3 - Acknowledgement card
Ext.B4 - Order of the Asst. Commissioner issued to the opposite party
Ext.B5 - Notice dt. 18.6.10
Ext.B6 - New paper – Kerala Kaumudi
Ext.B7 - Receipt for Rs.3008/-
Ext.B8 - Receipt dt. 18.6.10
Exts.B9& B10 - Receipts dt. 6.7.11 & 3.7.10
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
