Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/40/2013

M.Sivakumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance, Nagapattinam. - Opp.Party(s)

K.Kalithasan

30 Jul 2014

ORDER

   

Date of Filing      : 12.09.2013

                                                                                       Date of Disposal: 30.07.2014

                                                                   

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED, B.Com.,   ….  MEMBER I

               Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                              …. MEMER II

 

 

CC. No.40/2013

 

DECIDED ON THIS   30^th  DAY OF JULY  2014.

 

 

            M. Sivakumar (Age.36/13),

            S/o Marudhan

            Door No.1/24C, Kizh Street,

            Sangamangalam Post,

            Nagapattinam  District.                                               …..      Complainant

                                                                                                  

                                                                /versus/

                                   

The  Muthoot Finance Ltd.,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

 NO.72, Neela West Street,

           Nagapattinam  District.                                              ….. Opposite party

 

 

 

            This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 21.07.2014, on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thiru.K.Kalidasan, Counsel for the complainant, Thiru.S.Karthikesh, counsel for the opposite party and having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum  passed the following

 

      ORDER.

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection  Act 1986. 

 

                        2. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that on 04.03.2011, the complainant borrowed the sum of Rs.49000/- on pledging 33gms gold Jewel with the opposite party under the Bond No.149622, dated 04.03.2011 and paid Rs.5000/- and another sum of Rs.2500/- on two occasions towards interest for the said loan and there is no documentary evidence therefor, as the opposite party is not used to give receipt for the payment of periodical interest to the borrower that on 28.11.2012 the complainant approached the  opposite party with the principal amount Rs.49000/- with interest to discharge the loan and redeem the Jewel.  But the latter asked him to come  on 05.12.2012 and when he went again on that day the opposite party informed the complainant to his great shock that the jewel could not be returned, as they were already auctioned for the loan amount.   When questioned by the complainant as to how it was auctioned without giving prior notice to him, the opposite party did not give any responsible reply to the complainant.  The auctioning of the jewel by the opposite party without prior notice to the opposite party is not only unfair trade practice, but also sheer deficiency of service on his part.  The complainant issued the lawyer’s notice on 13.12.2012 to the opposite party who has not sent any reply despite his receipt of the notice on 26.12.2012, finally informed the complainant on 07.08.2013 that the jewel could not be returned to him.  The market value of 33gms jewel is Rs.85000/- . The complainant prays for an order to direct the opposite party to return the jewel to the complainant after receiving the principal amount of Rs.49000/- and to pay Rs.100000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to him, owing to the deficiency service of the opposite party and to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of this litigation and to grant and such and other relief as this Forum may deem fit.                    

         3. The gist of the written version filed by the opposite party is that as the complainant failed to redeem the pledged jewel within the period of one year from the date of availing of the loan, the opposite party has got every right to auction it for the realization of the loan amount.  But the opposite party has not taken any steps to auction the jewel.  The complainant never approached the opposite party for redeeming the jewel as alleged by him.  After issuing the lawyer’s notice the complainant approached the opposite party and sought for one year time to redeem the jewel and the opposite party gave six months time to him to repay the loan amount.  Hence no reply was sent by the opposite party to the complainant’s said notice.  Even after six months the complainant never turned up to redeem the jewel and hence the auction notice was sent to the complainant under the registered post dated 23.08.2013 and after receiving the auction notice in order to gain time, the complainant has filed by this complaint.  If the complainant discharges the loan amount the opposite party is always ready to hand over the jewels to the complainant.  Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost to this opposite party. 

                        4.  The complainant has filed his proof affidavit in support his claim and filed 3 documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A3.  The opposite party has filed his proof affidavit, but no document. Written arguments have been submitted by both the sides.

5. Points for determination in this case are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what?

                 6. Point 1:  Exhibit A1 is the Bond evidencing the advancement of the loan of Rs.49000/- to the complainant on his pledging the gold neckless weing  33gms with the opposite party, Exhibit A2 is the office copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s lawyer to the opposite party and the Exhibit A3 is the copy of the postal acknowledgment card received by the opposite party. 

                        7. The advancement of loan amount of Rs.49000/- by the opposite party to the complainant and the pledging of the jewel of 33gms for the said loan are admitted facts. The complainant has made an averment in his complaint that he had paid Rs.5000/- and Rs.2500/- on two occasions towards interest for the said loan, but receipts were not given by the opposite party as he is not in the habit of issuing the receipts for periodical payment of interest.  This said averment is not specifically denied by the opposite party in his written version.  Therefore it is presumed that the said total payment or Rs.7500/- had been made by the complainant to the opposite party towards interest for the said loan amount.  For the notice sent by the complainant through his lawyer the opposite party has not cared to give reply which omission itself, tantamounts to deficiency of service on his part.

                        8.  The allegation of the opposite party that the complainant approached him after issuing the said notice, and sought for one year time to redeem the jewel  and that the opposite party gave six months time to repay the loan amount is not at all proved, and it is not the justifiable reason for not issuing the reply to the said lawyer’s notice. Further the opposite party has stated in his written version as well as proof affidavit that the notice of auction was sent to the complainant on 23.08.2013 under the registered post, but no documentary evidence is filed before this Forum to substantiate the said version.  Therefore this Forum finds that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

                             9. Point 2:  In the result the complaint is partly allowed. As the complainant has not proved his readiness and willingness to redeem the jewel on 05.12.2012, as alleged by him, he is now directed to pay the loan amount of Rs.49000/- (Rupees forty nine thousand only) with interest at the rate 12% per annum from the 04.03.2011 till today, the date of this order, after deducting the payment of Rs.7500/- (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only) already made towards interest of the said loan, within 30 days from the date of this order to the opposite party and on such payment the opposite party is directed to return the jewel to the complainant.  The opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant towards cost of this litigation, within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till the date of its realization.  If the complainant fails to repay the loan as said above the complaint shall stand dismissed automatically.  If the opposite party fails to receive the amount and return the jewel he shall be liable to pay the value of the 33gms of Jewel as per the prevailing market value as on date and also to pay the sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and hardship caused to him owing to the deficiency of service of the opposite party besides forfeiting the loan amount itself.

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me on this    30^th   day of  July 2014.

 

 

 

 

    MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                   PRESIDENT

 

 

 

List  of document filed by the complainant

 

Ex.A1/Dt.04.03.2011: The Xerox copy of the Bond evidencing advancement of Jewel

   loan of Rs.49000/- to the complainant by the opposite party.

Ex.A2/Dt.13.12.2012: The Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s lawyer to

    the opposite party.

Ex.A3/Dt. 26.12.2012: The Xerox copy of the postal acknowledgment card by the

     opposite party.

 

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

CC.No.40/ 2013

Order Dt.: 30.07.2014.