KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 366/2009

JUDGMENT DATED:  21-01-2010

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU            :  PRESIDENT

APPELLANT

Managing Director,

Muthoot Mercantile LTD.,

Registered Office at 113,

Attukal Shopping Complex, East Fort,

Thiruvananthapuram.

          (Rep. by Adv. Sri. K. Muralidharan Nair)

                    Vs

RESPONDENT

S. Abdul Jabbar,

Sabeena Manzil,

C.K.P. Kottaikkakom,

Perinad, Kollam.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

                        The appellant is the opposite party in OP No. 05/2007 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram.  The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

          2.          The case of the complainant is that he pledged gold ornaments with the opposite party on 26-04-2006 for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-.  The agreed rate of interest was 18%.  On 16-11-2006 when he approached the opposite party to redeem the ornaments 24% interest was demanded.  The opposite party was also not willing to issue receipt for the same.  The complainant petitioned before the Police Inspector, Thampanoor.  The Police Inspector summoned the staff of the opposite party and directed to return the ornaments collecting interest only at 18%.  It is alleged that the opposite party in violation of the banking laws were attempting to collect excess interest and was refusing to issue receipts to evade tax payment.  According to him, he could not attend duties for 2 days and had also to go to the Police Station etc.  He has sought for a sum of Rs. 1500/- as compensation.

          3.          The opposite parties/appellants have filed version admitting the pledge of the gold ornaments and contending that the demand for interest at 24% was made in the counterfoil of the pawn ticket, wherein he had singed a declaration promising to repay the amount with interest on or before 26-07-2006 ie, within 3 months.  As the complainant did not turn up for redeeming the pledge, he was contacted over phone and directed to take back the pledged ornaments.  As he was unwilling and made excuses he was informed that he will be proceeded against for breach of conditions of pledge.  Apparently offended by the above intimation the complainant approached the Thampanoor Police Station and lodged a false case on 16-11-2006.  The Sub inspector of Police was informed by the opposite party about the reluctance of the complainant to redeem the pledge and that the opposite party is willing to release the ornaments on repayment of the amount with 18% interest till the date of repayment as agreed between the parties.  Accordingly, the complainant paid the amount and the ornaments were released.  The opposite party has sought for compensatory cost of Rs. 10,000/- vide Section 26 of the CP Act, 1986 as the complaint is frivolous and vexatious in nature.

          4.          The evidence adduced consisted on the testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts. P1 to P3.

          5.          PW1 the complainant has testified with respect to the affair as per the averments in the complaint.  DW1 the Regional Manager of the opposite party has filed proof affidavit and was also cross-examined.  The Forum has observed relying on the writings on Ext.P3 the receipt with respect to the pledge dated 26-04-2006 wherein on the lower portion the amount of Rs. 8,000/- is seen added to Rs. 1,072/- and the total amount mentioned as Rs. 9,072/-.  On the right hand side it is also written as 804 and rounded.  It is observed by the Forum that the above indicated that the opposite party calculated interest at 24% and also at 18%.  Ext.P1 is the receipt issued at the time of redemption dated 17-11-2006 wherein the interest calculated is noted as Rs. 808/-.  Ext.P3 is a photocopy.  The opposite party has denied the genuineness of the writings in Ext.P3 with respect to the calculation of the amounts.  Ofcourse, the above calculation would not reflect the alleged calculation of interest as 24% or 18%.  All the same, we find that the matter involves only appreciation of evidence.   We find that the order does not contain any patent illegality.  The Forum cannot be found fault with in arriving at the conclusion in support of the case set up by the complainant, as it is not normal human conduct to approach the police without a proper grievance.  We find that no interference in the order as such is called for.

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 

          The office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum.

                                                JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT