Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/92/2017

Rangappa S. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S.Sathyanarayanarao

23 Jan 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:28.09.2017

DISPOSED      ON:23.01.2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 92/2017

 

DATED:  23^rd JANUARY 2018

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

……COMPLAINANT	Rangappa, S/o Giriyappa, Age: 52 Years, Agriculturist and Coolie Worker, Anganawadi Road, Doddaghatta Village and Post, Chitradurga District.      (Rep by Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	The Authorized Signatory, Muthoot Fincorp Limited, Near Private Bus Stand, Medehally Road, Chitradurga Town.   (Rep by Sri. G.B. Nagaraja, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N.SREENIVASAIAH : PRESIDENT     

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to deliver the pledged Gold Ornaments, Rs.1,00,000/- towards  mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards costs and such other relief.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, on 31.05.2016, he approached and requested the OP company to provide loan for Rs.47,000/- and Rs.10,000/- in total Rs.57,000/- by pledging gold ornaments to meet his legal necessities.  Accordingly, the OP sanctioned the said loan on 31.05.2016 by keeping one ring weighing 5-6 gms, another ring weighing 6 gms and one bracelet weighing 122 gms totally weighing 23 gms as a security towards loan.  The terms of loan has been fixed for nine months.  It is further submitted that, due to failure of rain, complainant was in a disastrous condition and he was unable to pay the interest or principle amount.  After 5-6 months back, the complainant approached the OP and requested to provide time to get release the pledged gold ornaments.  The OP agreed to provide further three months time.  After 2-3 months, again complainant has approached and informed that he is ready to pay the loan amount along with interest.  It is further submitted that, the complainant came to know that the pledged ornaments have been auctioned without informing the complainant or not following the procedural aspects.  Immediately, the complainant requested the OP to deliver the gold ornaments by receiving loan amount along with interest.  But, the OP has informed orally that, the gold ornaments have already auctioned and all the formalities are over.  In this regard, some verbal conversations were held, the OP has given evasive answer and not behaved properly.  Due to this illegal act committed by the OP, the complainant has suffered financial loss nearly for Rs.40,000/- to 50,000/-.  It is further submitted that the complainant is still ready to perform his part of contract.  The complainant is ready to pay the loan amount along with interest for the purpose of releasing the gold ornaments.  But the OP to gain wrongful gain has sold the pledged gold ornaments without following any procedure, which clearly shows that, the OP has committed deficiency of service.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 04.09.2017 when the OP refused to deliver the pledged gold ornaments to the complainant by receiving the loan amount which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and prays for allow the complaint.

   3.  After service of notice to the OP, OP appeared through Sri. G.B. Nagaraj, Advocate and filed their version.  According to the OP, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is put to strict proof of the same and liable to be dismissed in limine.  It is true that, the complainant has borrowed a sum of Rs.47,000/- and Rs.10,000/- in total a sum of Rs.57,000/- by pledging gold ornaments weighing 23 gms on 31.05.2016 from the OP.  OP sanctioned a loan by keeping two rings net weight of 11 gms and one bracelet weighing 12 gms in total 23 gms.  The rest of the averments made in para 4 to 6 are specifically denied as false.  The complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  It is submitted that, one of the conditions of the loan agreement is that, the loan is redeemable within 3 months from the date of pledging of gold ornaments. However, the complainant has failed to redeem the same even after expiry of 9 months.  The OP has send reminder notice to the complainant on 26.08.2016, 16.11.2016 and 16.01.2017 reminding the complainant to pay the interest due.  Even after the genuine attempts the complainant did not turn up and finally the OP force to comply with the auction procedure.  It is further stated that, the OP left with no other alternative, has sold the gold ornaments in a public auction by following due process of law.  The OP has send the auction notice to the complainant through the registered post on 06.04.2017 and the same has been served to the complainant.  The postal receipt and served acknowledgement are herewith produced and also the paper publications were made regarding auction in Hosa Diganta and New Indian Express News Papers on 20.04.2017.  Accordingly, the pledged gold ornaments have been auctioned in a public auction on 27.04.2017.  As on the date of auction, an amount of Rs.58,363/- was due from the complainant.  With respect to F3202 and Rs.12,525/- with respect to F 3204 towards full and final settlement.  Ornaments under F 3202 were auctioned for Rs.54,785/- and ornaments under F 3204 were auctioned for Rs.12,525/-.  Hence, a total amount of Rs.3,699/- is due from the complainant towards full and final settlement of the outstanding against the loan.  It is further submitted that, the OP has followed and complied all the duties towards the complainant since the date of pledge.  The complainant failed to discharge his liability.  The OP has legally entitled to proceed against the gold ornaments by the complainant as per Sec.176 of the Indian Contract Act.  The OP has not committed any deficiency of service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on the documents like Ex.A-1 and A-2 and closed his side. OP has examined one Sri. Krishna. G, the Branch Manager as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-7 and closed their side.   

5.     Arguments heard. 

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

1. Whether the complainant proves that the OP has committed deficiency of service for not following the procedure before auction the pledged gold ornaments?

 

2. What order?

 

7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, on 31.05.2016, the complainant approached OP to provide loan for Rs.47,000/- and Rs.10,000/- in total Rs.57,000/- by pledging gold ornaments to meet his legal necessities.  The OP has sanctioned a loan of Rs.57,000/- on 31.05.2016 by keeping two rings weighing 11 gms and one bracelet weighing 12 gms totally weighing 23 gms as a security towards loan.  The term of loan was nine months.  Due to failure of rain, complainant was unable to pay the loan amount and take back the pledged gold ornaments from the OP along with interest.  After completion of the nine months, the complainant approached OP seeking 2-3 months time for redeem the gold ornaments.  By that time, the OP agreed and after completion of 2-3 months, the complainant approached OP with amount along with interest for redeem the gold ornaments.  By that time, the OP says that they have already sold the gold ornaments in a public auction by following the procedure as contemplated under law.  According to the OP, they have followed the procedure before selling the gold ornaments by issuing registered letter to the complainant and published in Hosa Diganta and New Indian Express News Papers.  As per the documents produced by the complainant, the complainant has put his signature in Kannada but the OP has produced one document Ex.B-5 i.e., registered postal acknowledgement, the signature on the same is in English.  The documents produced by both the parties clearly shows that, the OP has not followed the procedure before auction the gold ornaments. 

9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and OP.  According to the complainant, he has intended to pledge gold ornaments for providing loan from the OP.  On 31.05.2016, the complainant has obtained loan from the OP for Rs.57,000/- by pledging the gold ornaments to meet his legal necessity.  Accordingly, the OP has sanctioned loan on 31.05.2016 by keeping two rings and one bracelet weighing 23 gms and sanctioned loan of Rs.57,000/- and put a condition to the complainant to take back the pledged gold ornaments within nine months from the date of pledge.  In this case, the complainant has approached OP seeking 2-3 months time extra for redeem the gold ornaments and the OP sanctioned the time by orally.  After completion of the 2-3 months, the complainant has adjusted the loan amount along with interest to redeem the gold ornaments.  By that time, the OP says that, the gold ornaments has been already sold in a public auction and stating that, the complainant is still in due of Rs.3,699/-.  Here the Forum has to consider whether the OP followed the procedure before selling the gold ornaments in a public auction.  According to the OP, they have issued registered post letter to the complainant and the same has been served to the complainant.  But as per Ex.B-5 signature put on the acknowledgement as Rangappa is in English but, at the time of pledging the gold ornaments, the complainant has put his signature in all the documents as Rangappa in Kannada.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, the OP has not followed the procedure before selling the gold ornaments in a public auction.  Hence, it goes to show that, the OP has committed deficiency in service.  Hence, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

 

10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.  

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this proceedings.  

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 23/01/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

           

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:- Sri. Krishna G, Branch Manager of OP by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Certificate of loan sanction dated 31.05.2016 for Rs.10,000/-
02	Ex.A-2:-	Certificate of loan sanction dated 31.05.2016 for Rs.47,000/-

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1 & 2:-	Two original pledge cards
02	Ex.B-3:-	Auction Notice
03	Ex.B-4:-	Auction Notice
04	Ex.B-5:-	Postal receipt and acknowledgement
05	Ex.B-6:-	Paper publication
06	Ex.B-7:-	Auction Details

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**