By Smt. Bindu. R, President:
This complaint is filed by Prathab.G, aged 39, S/o. Govindaraj (Late), Palakkal House, Meppadi P.O, Vythiri Taluk along with Mini Mol, W/o. Prathab. G and Vaishna, D/o. Prathab. G of the same address as 2nd and 3rd Complainants against the Branch Manager, Muthoot Fincorp Ltd., Meppadi Branch, Meppadi (P.O), Wayanad District, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from their side.
2. The allegations of the Complainants are that the Complainants had pledged their gold ornaments in the Opposite Party institution on different dates from 03.08.2020 to 13.03.2021 and thus a total amount of Rs.11,90,998/- has been availed as loan against which Rs.1,10,000/- was repaid in to the account. It is further stated that the Opposite Party had intimated that a total amount of Rs.16,32,664/- is due towards the above loan from the Complainant to the Opposite Party. It is also stated by the Complainants that the Opposite Party had intimated that the above ornaments will be sold in public auction on 16.12.2021.
3. The Complainants alleges that the calculation of interest and weighment of stones in the gold ornaments assessed by the Opposite Party is incorrect and irregular and the total weighment of the gold ornaments pledged by the Complainant is 335.7 gms and the Opposite Party had sent a messenger to the Complainant demanding to pay an amount of Rs.16,32,664/-. Since it is during the pandemic covid period the Complainants were not in a position to remit the amount asked for by the Opposite Party. Under the circumstances described above the Complainants prays to issue direction to the Opposite Party restraining the Opposite Party from selling the gold ornaments in auction along with other reliefs.
4. Upon notice from the Commission the Opposite Party entered into appearance and filed their version. In the version the Opposite Party denied all the allegations raised by the Complainants and stated that the weighment of ornaments stated by the Complainants is false and the 1st Complainant had pledged only 59 gms of gold and availed Rs.1,00,000/-. The Opposite Party institution is functioning as per the guidelines and Master Direction of Fare Practices Code and the Complainants had accepted the weight of the ornaments and the weight of the stone and signed on the terms and conditions which was in mother tongue. A total of five loans were availed by the Complainants on different dates from 03.08.2020 to 13.03.2021 which is stated in detail with date, amount and weighment by the Opposite Party in the version. The amount stated in the complaint against the loan availed by the Complainants is Rs.11,90,998/- is correct but the amount of Rs. 1,01,900/- paid by the Complainant on 18.08.2021 is the amount which is to be deposited for postponing the date of auction and accordingly the date of auction was postponed and even on that date the Complainant had not paid back the loan amount. The Opposite Party had further stated that the Complainant approached the Commission and obtained the order of stay only after the date of auction and hence it is infructuous. More over the argument of the Complainants that the gold ornaments pledged by the Complainants are belonging to some one else is against the declaration given and signed by the Complainants at the time of pledging that the ornaments are belonging to them and hence prayed for dismissal of the case with costs.
5. Evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 from the side of the Complainants and oral testimony of OPW1 and Exts.B1 to B8 (series) from the side of the Opposite Party.
6. Ext.A1 goes to show that the 1st Complainant had pledged gold ornaments on 03.08.2020 having weighment of 2077.18 grams (gross weight) in which 2018.810 is shown as stone wt/other deductions. In Ext.A1 the net weight of the ornament is shown as 59.000 approx and availed an amount of Rs.1,99,999.00. Ext.A2(a) is the pledge token in the name of Minimol. P, the 2nd Complainant for Rs.1,99,999/- in which the total weight is shown as 67.260 gms, stone weight/other deduction approx is 8.060 and stone weight is 59.200 (approx). Ext.A2(b) is a pledge token dated 04.08.2020 in the name of 2nd Complainant for Rs.1,00,000/- which shows the total weight is 48.000 stone weight/other deduction approx shown as 18.000 and net weight is shown as 30.000 (approx). Ext.A2(c) is a pledge token for an amount of Rs.5,70,000/- dated 07.09.2020 in the name of the 2nd Complainant shows that she had pledged 157.540 gm of gold in which 0.040 (stone weight/ other deductions) approx and net weight is shown as 157.500 approx. Ext.A3 shows that on 13.02.2021 an amount of Rs.1,21,000/- has been availed by Vaishna, 3rd Complainant by pledging 38.000 gms of gold and A3 shows that the total weight of the ornament is 38.000, stone weight etc is shown as ‘0’ and net weight of the ornament is 38.000 approx. Ext.A4 is a copy of cheque bearing No. “254439” drawn on Axis bank dated 17.01.2022 in favour of Vaishna.S, the 3rd Complainant for Rs.5,078/- which shows “Muthoot Fincorp Ltd Account close” above the signature on the right side.
7. On perusing the documents filed by the Opposite Party which is marked as Exts.B1 to B8 series, Ext.B1 series is the original application, declaration, testimony and details of gold pledged (relating to Ext.A1 receipt) by the 1st Complainant for Rs.1,99,999.00. Ext.B2 series is the original application, declaration, testimony and details of gold pledged (relating to A2 series) by Minimol P, the 2nd Complainant with reference to loans dated 03.08.2020, 07.09.2020 and 04.08.2020. Ext.B3 series is the original application, declaration, testimony and details of gold pledged (relating to A3) by Vaishna, the 3rd Complainant. Ext.B4 series is the Copies of notices issued to the Complainant calling upon them to pay the interest or to clear the loan. Ext.B5 series (10 in Nos.) are the notices returned to the sender. Ext.B6 series (2 Nos.) are the acknowledgment card signed by Complainants 2 and 3. Ext.B7 series (5 Nos.) are the copies of demand/auction notices demanding payment of money to avoid the sale proceeds showing the date of auction as 08.12.2021 at 10 am or on 14.12.2021 at 10 AM if the same is not conducted on 08.12.2021. Ext.B8 series are the paper publication showing the advertisements.
8. The following are the points to be analyised in this case to derive in to an inference of the fact.
- Whether the Complainant had sustained to any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party?
- If so the quantum of compensation and costs for which the Complainant is entitled to get?
9. Case of the Complainants in the complaint is that the Complainants had
pledged the ornaments of the elder sister of 2nd Complainant but the Opposite Party is trying to sell the ornaments in public auction without complying the formalities, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
10. During cross examination, PW1 deposed that “ B`-c-W-§-fpsS Photos ]en-i-\n-c-¡p-Ifpw DÅ tcJ-IÄ BWv Ext.A1, A2 series. hy-h-Ø-IÄ Cu tcJ-I-fn print sNbvXn-cn-¡p¶p AXv Rm³ hmbn¨p a\-Ên-em-¡n. B`-c-W-§Ä Xq¡p-¶Xv Rm³ In-Ã. She adds Rm³ t\m¡n-bn-Ã. B`-c-W-¯nsâ Xq¡-¯n XÀ¡w Dff Imcyw BZ-y-ambn Cu ]cm-Xn-bn BWv ]d-bp-¶-Xv”. She further deposed that “Ext.A4 kzÀ®w teew sNbvX-Xn\v tijw Excess amount aI-fpsS t]cn Ab¨p X¶ tcJ-bm-Wv”. PW1 further stated that “IA 298/21 Rm³ 14.12.21 \mWv t_m[n-¸n-¨-Xv. kzÀ®w FSp-t¡ XobXn Ignªv 10 ½ amkw Ign-ªmWv IA 298/21 Rm³ sImSp-¯Xv CXn-\p-ap³]v Rm³ FXr-I-£n¡v FXnsc bmsXmcp ]cm-Xnbpw sImSp-¯n-Ã. Xq¡-¯n hy-X-ymkw tXm¶n-bXv teew hnfn-¡p¶ Znh-k-am-bn-cp¶p A¶v Rm³ AhnsS Dm-bn-cp-¶p. A¶v 5 aWn-hsc kabw Xcmw F¶p ]d-ªn-cp-¶p. At¸m-tg¡pw ChnsS \n¶pw stay h¶p Bk-a-b¯v Manager Ft¶mSv h¶v teew hnfn¨p F¶v ]d-ªp. At¸mÄ Fsâ ssI¿n ss]k CÃm-bn-cp-¶p. teew \o«Ww F¶v ]dªv At]£ sImSp-¯n-Ã. Rm³ stay Im¯v Ccn-¡p-I-bm-bn-cp-¶p”. PW1 further deposed that “kzÀ®w Fsâbpw `À¯m-hn-sâbpw aI-fp-sSbpw Bbn-cp-¶p. tem¬ kwJy IpSn-ÈnI BWv F¶v ]dªv F\n¡v ]e {]mh-iyw t\m«okv In«n-bn-cp-¶p”.
11. During cross examination OPW1 deposed that “ ]cm-Xn-¡msc Adn-bn-¡msX tee \S-]-Sn-IÄ \S-¯n-sb¶v ]d-ªm icn-bà Ahsc Ad-nbn-¨-Xn ]cm-Xn-¡mÀ Hm^o-kn h¶n-cp¶XmWv tee \S-]-Sn-IÄ \nÀ¯n-h-bv¡-W-sa¶v 18.12.21 D¯-chv e`n-¨n-cp-¶p. 14.12.21 \v t\m«okv Ab-¨n-cp¶p F¶v ]d-ªn-cn-¡p-¶Xv icn-bà teew \S-¡p¶ A¶v t\m«okv Ab-¨n-«nà tee Znhkw t\m«okv Ab¨v tee hnhcw ad¨p sh¨n-«mWv \nba \S-]-Sn-IÄ kzo-I-cn-¨n-cn-¡p-¶-sX¶v ]d-ªm icn-bà Hcp \nba \S-]-Snbpw kzo-I-cn-¡msX Hcp Adn-bn¸pw \ÂIm-sX-bmWv teew \S-¯n-b-sX¶v ]d-ªm icn-b-Ô.
12. The Commission verified all the documents produced from either side and also the facts recorded from the deposition by both sides in the box. It can be seen that the Complainant approached the Commission on 14.12.2021 and filed the instant complaint. Notices were issued by the Commission calling upon the Opposite Party to appear before the Commission on 31.01.2022. The Complainant moved the Commission to issue an interim stay order to restrain the Opposite Party from carrying out the auction on 14th December 2021 and accordingly an interim stay order restraining the Opposite Party from selling the gold ornaments was issued on 14.12.2021. The argument of the Opposite Party is that the auction was done on 14.12.2021 itself and the balance of sale proceeds in excess to the liability was sent by Opposite Party by way of cheque in the name of 3rd Complainant.
13. Here the crucial question arises for consideration is as to whether the stay order was served on the Opposite Party either in hand and got acknowledged or send electronically to the Opposite Party before conducting the auction. The argument of the Opposite Party is that the orders in the IA is infructuous since the auction was done on the notified date ie on 14.12.2021 before receiving order of stay. There is no proof from the side of the Complainant to substantiate and establish that the stay order dated 14.12.2021 was given to the Opposite Party before the conduct of auction. In the absence of any evidence regarding the service of the order of the Commission to the Opposite Party before auction this Commission cannot derive into any inference or a conclusion that the auction was conducted after receiving the order of stay. More over with respect to the allegation in the complaint, there is no evidence to show that the calculation of interest and weighment of stones in the gold are incorrect. In these circumstances the Commission found that the Complainant had not proved any deficiency of service from the part of the Opposite Party and there is no merit in the complaint. Hence point No.1 is found against the Complainant.
14. Since point No.1 is found against, the other point is not considered by the Commission.
Hence Consumer Case is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15th day of May 2024.
Date of filing:14.12.2021.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainants:
PW1. Mini Mol. P. House Wife.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Sruthin. M.R. Branch Manager.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Receipt. dt:03.08.2020.
A2(a) Receipt. dt:03.08.2020.
A2(b) Receipt. dt:04.08.2020.
A2(c ) Receipt. dt:07.09.2020.
A3. Receipt. dt:13.03.2021.
A4. Payment Reference. dt:17.01.2022.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
B1 series. (4 Pages) Application, declaration, testimony and details of gold pledged
by the 1s t Complainant.
B2 series (12 Pages) Application, declaration, testimony and details of gold pledged
by Minimol. P.
B3 series (5 Pages) Application, declaration, testimony and details of gold pledged
by Vyshna.
B4 series (4 Pages) Copy of Notice.
B5 series (20 Pages) Copy of Notices.
B6 series (2Pages) Acknowledgment .
B7 series (5 Nos.) Copy of Notice.
B8 series (2 Nos.) Paper Publication.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
