Complaint filed on: 28.11.2016
Complaint Disposed on:04.10.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.112/2016
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF OCTOMBER 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT/S:
Mr Ravikumar N.C.,
S/o Sri Chandre Gowda N.,
R/o Benaka Residency,
K.M.Road, Chikmagalur City.
(By Sri/Smt. D.S.Sathish, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT/S:
Branch Manager,
Mannapuram Finance Ltd.,
Branch Office, Mallandor road,
Chikmagalur-577101.
(OP - By Sri/Smt. Hareesh Singatagere, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP alleging deficiency in service in not returning the gold ornaments by receiving the balance loan amount and also not paying the current rate of the gold ornaments. Hence, prays for direction against Op either to return the gold ornaments or to pay the current rate of the gold ornaments along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant has availed a loan of Rs.2,48,249/- from Op on 18.06.2016 by pledging one gold bracelet, two gold chains and two broad bangles totally weighing 125.50 grams. After obtaining the said gold loan the complainant was paying the interest and loan amount regularly and in the month of September 2016 he went to office of the Op to clear the loan and to receive the gold ornaments, but Op have informed that the said gold ornaments were stolen by some miscreants on 25.09.2016 and suggested to pay the value of the net weight of the gold. The complainant had not agreed to the proposal made by Op and he demanded for return of the gold ornaments or to pay the current rate of the gold ornaments. But Op refused to settle the claim made by complainant, inspite of repeated requests also Op neglected to settle the claim of the complainant. Hence, Op rendered a deficiency in service in not settling the claim of the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 14.10.2016 to return the gold ornaments or to pay the current rate of the gold ornaments along with compensation for deficiency in service. Even inspite of receipt of the legal notice also Op failed to settle the claim of the complainant. Hence, complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of Op and prays for direction against Op to return the gold ornaments or to pay current rate of the gold ornaments along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that they are incorporated company having its registered office at W638A, Mannapuram house, Valapad, Trissur, Kerala and they have branch office at Mallandur road, Chikmagalur and running business of granting financial loans.
The complainant has availed a loan of Rs.2,48,249/- on 18.06.2016 by pledging the gold ornaments weighing 125.50 grams. At the time of availing the loan complainant under took to repay the said amount within 90 days with interest and also agreed to pay the installments subject to terms and conditions which were informed to complainant at the time of availing the loan and after accepting the terms and conditions of the pawn agreement the complainant signed and taken a loan from the Op.
As per clause 13 of the terms and conditions of the pawn agreement, the Op is only liable to return the gold to the extent of net weight as mentioned in the pawn ticket in case of theft, robbery or stealing of gold pledged with the Op and the Op is not liable to pay making or wastage charges. As per clause 2 of the terms and conditions of the pawn agreement the stone in the gold ornaments which was pledged has got no market value and the Op is not liable to pay the cost of the stone to the complainant in any event. The Op is not liable to pay making or wastage charges to the complainant as claimed by him. The Op after going through all the terms and conditions of the pawn agreed to avail the loan. The entire loan transaction is governed by the terms and conditions of the said contract. As such the claim of the complainant is not maintainable in view of the terms and conditions of the contract between the complainant and Op.
Op further contended that they have taken all precautions and measures to safeguard the gold ornaments which were pledged and inspite of taking such safety measures the gold ornaments weighing 13 K.G.s and 460 grams were stolen from the custody of Op. The said stolen gold ornaments belonging to 742 accounts with this Op Company. This Op already settled the claims of about 650 accounts as per the terms and conditions, but complainant had demanded certain claims which are contrary to the terms and conditions of the pawn and there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op in settling the claim of the complainant. The complainant has demanded for exorbrated claims. Hence, they are not liable to pay any claim made by complainant.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.2. Op also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP?
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Op, there is no dispute that the complainant on 18.06.2016 has pledged his gold ornaments such as one gold bracelet, two gold chains, two broad bangles weighing 125.50 grams weight and availed a loan of Rs.2,48,249/-. Subsequently, after obtaining the loan complainant approached the Op for clearance of the loan and demanded for return of the gold ornaments, for which Op stated that the gold ornaments which were pledged with them were stolen by unknown persons and they offered to pay the value of the gold ornaments. But the complainant suggested the Op to pay the current rate of the gold ornaments. But Op had not agreed to settle the claim of the complainant. Hence, complainant alleges deficiency in service and prays for direction against Ops to settle the claim of the complainant.
9. On contrary Op had taken a contention that, as per the clause 13 of the terms and conditions of the pawn agreement they are only liable to return the gold to the extent of net weight as mentioned in the pawn ticket in case of theft, robbery or stealing of the gold pledged with this Op, but they are not liable to pay making and wastage charges. Further Op contended that as per the clause 2 of the terms and conditions of the pawn agreement the stone in the gold ornaments which were pledged has got no market value and the Op is not liable to pay the current rate of the gold ornaments and they suggested the complainant to settle the claim to the net weight, but complainant not agreed and filed this false complaint in order to gain wrongfully. Hence, submits no deficiency in service.
10. Both complainant and Op have produced pawn ticket marked as Ex.R.1 and proposal form marked as Ex.R.2. There is also no dispute that the gold ornaments were stolen from the custody of Op. On going through the condition no.13 of the Ex.R.2 the Op is only liable to pay the value of the net weight of the gold in case of theft, robbery or stealing of the gold ornaments. Accordingly, the Op offered the complainant to settle the claim, but complainant resisted and demanded for payment of current rate of the gold ornaments. The demand made by complainant is not acceptable because the demand is contrary to the terms and conditions of the pawn ticket, the complainant has signed the said pawn ticket at the time of availing the loan. Hence, the terms and conditions of the pawn ticket are binding on both the parties.
11. We observed that, Op in his affidavit has sworn that nearly 650 customers have settled the claim by accepting the value of the net weight, but complainant only refused to settle the claim. We are of the opinion that the claim made by complainant is not acceptable and baseless. The Op is settling the claim due to theft of the gold ornaments. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed as complainant failed to establish a deficiency in service on the part of Op. Further complainant is at liberty to settle the claim as per the terms and conditions of the pawn ticket. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 4th day of October 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant/S:
Ex.P.1 - Receipt issued by Op with terms and conditions.
Ex.P.2 - Letter dtd:14.10.2016.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:
Ex.R.1 - Pawn ticket.
Ex.R.2 - Gold loan application by complainant.
Ex.R.3 - Loan indicator sheet.
Ex.R.4 - List of the customers settled after theft.
Dated:04.10.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
