KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 532/2010

JUDGMENT  DATED. 22.12.2010

PRESENT:-

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      : MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR           : MEMBER            

APPELLANT

     The Manager,

      Muthoot Fincorp Limited(Pappachan Group),

      Vandiperiyar P.O.,

      Idukki District.

                          ( Rep. by  Adv. Sri. Nair Ajaykrishnan & Narayan R)

                               Vs

RESPONDENT

     Radha,

     W/o Krishnankutty,

     Kandathinkara House,

     Vandiperiyar P.O.,

     Idukki District.

JUDGMENT

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      :     MEMBER

          This appeal is preferred against the order dated 29.5.2010 of CDRF, Idukki in C.C. 43/2010.  The complaint was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant as opposite party whereby the Forum below directed the opposite party to return the pledged articles within 30 days  from the date of receipt of copy  of order and also directed to charge 12% interest till 22.2.2009 along with Rs. 1,000/- as costs  and compensation.  It is aggrieved by these directions; the opposite party preferred the present appeal.

The case of the complainant is that on 19.2.2007 she availed a loan of Rs. 6,250/- from the opposite party by pledging gold ornaments  weighing 10 grams.  The complainant could not pay the interest in time due to financial problems and this matter was informed  to the opposite party and they informed that the loan would be valid for one  year and the complainant could close the loan at any  time within one year on repayment of the loan amount with interest. 

On 22.2.2009 the complainant approached the opposite party for repaying the loan amount with interest but the opposite party informed that the pledged ornaments were sold in auction.  No intimation regarding the auction sale was received by the complainant.   Hence she sent  a lawyer  notice to the opposite party.  But no reply was given.  Hence alleging deficiency of service and for getting the pledged ornaments with compensation and costs she filed complaint before the Forum below. 

The opposite parties filed version and admitted the loan taken by the complainant from the opposite party by pledging gold ornaments.  He further submitted that the complainant failed to repay the loan amount and she did not redeem the pledged ornaments within the stipulated time.  According to the opposite party he had not auctioned the ornaments pledged by the complainant and admitted that he is ready to release the ornaments on payment of principal amount with interest from the complainant.  According to the opposite party the complainant was duty bound to redeem gold ornaments within the stipulated time on payment of principal amount plus interest.  Hence she is not entitled to get  any amount as compensation as

prayed for.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on his part he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party and the respondent who appeared in person.  The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the Forum below had erred in awarding compensation and restricting payment of interest up to 22.2.2009.  He argued for the position that the appellant is entitled to levy interest till the date of payment of the loan amount.  Moreover Exts. R1 to R5 would show that the appellant had given due intimation regarding the auction sale.  He further submitted that awarding costs and compensation is against the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission.  He also pointed out that the complaint was filed as a preventive measure to evade from the liability of paying interest.  Thus he prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 

On the other hand the respondent who appeared in person submitted that on 22.2.2009, she approached the opposite party for

repaying the loan amount with interest.  But at that time the appellant informed that the pledged ornaments were sold in auction.  No intimation  was given to her  regarding the auction sale.  She showed her willingness to pay the amount plus 12% interest and ready to forgo the sum of Rs. 1,000/- which was ordered by the Forum below as costs and compensation.

The learned counsel for the appellant has advanced the contention that though the appellant was ready and willing to return the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant on payment of principal amount and interest at 12% per annum from the date of pledge, it was the complainant who did not come forward to pay the amount and take the ornaments from the opposite party.   He also submitted that the same was the view taken in the version also which the Forum did not appreciate in the correct perspective and the order directing the payment of interest only up to 22.2.2009 is illegal.  It is also seen that no interest is paid by the complainant from the date of taking the loan ie. from 19.2.2007 till date.  On an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances we find that there is no evidence Forthcoming from the side of the complainant to prove that the opposite parties had demanded higher rate of interest or that they

were unwilling to release the gold ornaments on 22.2.2009.   It is also to be found that the complainant’s case that she approached the opposite party on 22.2.2009 is not supported by any cogent evidence.  Hence the order of the Forum below directing the opposite party to collect interest only up to 22.2.2009 can not be upheld.   Moreover the complainant has expressed her willingness to pay the loan amount plus 12% interest per annum.   Hence it is our  considered view that the complainant is liable to pay 12% interest from 19.2.2007 along with principal amount of Rs. 6,250/- The complainant failed to  adduce evidence to show that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service, hence she  is not  entitled to get any  compensation or costs.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 29.5.2010 of CDRF, Idukki, in C.C. 43/2010 is set aside.  The complainant is liable to pay loan amount of Rs. 6,250/- with 12% interest per annum from 19.2.2007 till payment and the opposite party is directed to release gold ornaments as soon as the complainant tenders the amount mentioned above.  As far as the present appeal is concerned there shall be no order as to costs.

                                       VALSALA SARANGADHARAN :  MEMBER

                                        S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER