CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 11th day of August 2014
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 11/09/2013
: SMT. SHINY.P.R ,MEMBER
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
CC/154/2013
Dineshan, S/o. Venugopalan Nair,
Kundukkad Thottathil House,
Shornur P.O, Ottapalam Taluk. : Complainant
( By Adv. K.A.A. Sadath)
Vs
1.The Branch Manager,
Manappuram Asset Finance Ltd.,
( Shornur L.F.C),Shornur P.O,
Ottapalam Taluk.
2.The Managing Director,
Manappuram Asset Finance Ltd.,
Door No. 111/105,
Opp. Nattika Firka Co-Operative Rural Bank,
Valapad P.O, Thrissur Dt.
Pin. – 680 567 : Opposite parties
( By Adv.K.N Babu)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
Brief case of the complaint :-
The case of the complainant is that for the purpose of raising some amounts he had pledged some gold ornaments by pledging 4 items of gold ornaments on 9.11.2011 and 06.12.2011 respectively. The complainant submits that at the time of pledging the ornaments opposite party obtained some signed blank white papers and signed blank forms from the complainant. When he approached the 1st opposite party to take back the pledged articles after remitting the loan amount with interest, the 1st opposite party demanded huge amount towards interest illegally. It is also submitted that 1st opposite party threatened the complainant that if he is not prepared to pay the amount as they demanded, they will initiate legal actions by creating documents in the signed blank white papers and blank forms. On 27.6.2013 complainant received a lawyer notice informing that gold ornaments were sold in auction and also demanding a huge amount as balance amount to be receivable by 1st opposite party. The complainant alleges that there were no such auction as alleged and he has not received any notice in connection with the auction stated above. He also further submits that 1st opposite party had assured the complainant that the matter can be amicably solved in consultation with the 2nd opposite party and therefore he waited for an amicable solution after receipt of the said notice without taking any legal action against the opposite parties. Hence opposite parties have caused deficiency of service by conducting the auction of his gold ornaments without any receipt. Hence the complaint.
The notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance. Opposite parties entered appearance through counsel and filed version contenting the following:
The case of opposite parties is that complainant availed gold loan after executing loan documents under the loan scheme X- plus 30 days, tenure one year, at varying interest rate as mentioned in the pawn tickets. As per the terms of the loan the borrower should remit the interest due and close the account on or before the expiry of the period of loan. After availing the loan, the complainant never approached the opposite parties to close the loan account. The borrower has to repay the loan amount within a maximum period of one year. The opposite parties never demanded higher rate of interest. The chargeable rate of interest is as shown in the pawn tickets. The opposite parties never obtained any types of blank signed papers from the complainant. They never threatened complainant that they would take legal action by using blank signed papers. When the complainant failed to close the account within the stipulated period as per the terms and conditions of the loan, the officials of the opposite parties contacted the complainant several times and requested to close the loan account. The opposite parties also sent registered notices to the complainant. Even after the receipt of notice, the complainant has not closed the loan account. At last the officials of the opposite parties met the complainant personally and served an intimation on him about public auction of gold ornaments and his signature also obtained in the copy in lieu of acknowledgment of the notice. Even then complainant did not take any steps to close the loan transaction. So the opposite parties, after complying with all procedural and legal formalities sold the pledged ornaments in the public auction and sale amount credited in the complainant’s loan account towards the dues. Even after crediting the sale amount, there is still balance amount due from the complainant towards the amounts due under loan account. As per the terms of the loan agreements, the opposite party is entitled to recover whatever amount due in a legally enforceable manner. So the complainant filed this case with a view to escape from his liability under the said loan transaction. There is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and opposite party filed petition for cross examination of complainant. Application was allowed complainant was examined as Pw1 . Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 marked. Opposite party also filed affidavit along with documents Ext.B1 to B3 marked. Complainant also filed application for cross examination of opposite party . Opposite party was cross examined as DW1. Evidence was closed and the matter was posted for hearing. Complainant filed petition to reopen evidence and also petition for cross production of documents . Since document was necessary for just and proper adjudication of case, application was allowed. Opposite party was directed to produce to the sale register. Documents were produced and Ext.A3 and A4 were marked. Matter was heard .
During cross examination, the complainant admitted that at the time of pledging ornaments counter foils of the pawn tickets were given to him. The rate of interest, date of reset, scheme of pledging, period of tenure etc. are all specifically mentioned in those tickets which was marked Ext. B1 and B3. The opposite party has charged the rate of interest prevailing for the particular scheme. The opposite party contented that they are entitled to collect interest at the contract rate. The complainant contented that the said rate of interest is highly illegal. Being a money lending institution, the opposite parties are adhered to concerned laws i.e. The Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. Section 7 of the said Act prohibits from charging interest at a rate exceeding 2% above the maximum rate of interest charged by commercial banks on loans granted by them. It is pertinent to note that the maximum interest rate chargeable by commercial banks on loans is below 18%. Hence the opposite parties cannot charge interest above 20% as showing Ext. B3 series . They cannot over ride the provisions of a statue by an administrative decision taken by them to charge interest at a rate above the permissible limit . The complainant submits that even if there exist such a contract, it is unenforceable since it is against the provisions of the statute (The Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958) . The above aspect is purely a civil dispute and the actual rate of interest can be determined only by a competed civil court. According to the opposite party when the complainant failed to close the loan account with in the stipulated period as per the terms and condition of the loan, the officials of the opposite parties contacted the complainant and requested to close the loan account. They had also sent registered notices to the complainant. At last the official of the opposite party met the complainant personally and served the intimation on him about public auction of the gold ornaments and his signature also obtained in the copy in lieu of acknowledgement of the notice. Even after that, the complainant did not take any steps to close the loan transaction. Hence the opposite parties, after complying with all procedural and legal formalities, sold the pledged ornament in the public auction and sale amount was credited in complainant’s loan account towards the dues. The public auction of the pledged ornaments was also published in a news paper. So from the records, it can be seen that before conducting public auction opposite party had complied all legal and procedural formalities . Hence we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Considering the evidence and documents produced before the forum it is viewed that the complainant failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any of the relief as prayed in the complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed without any cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 11th day of August 2014.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext. A1 Series - Lawyer notice sent to complainant dated 27/06/2013
Ext. A2 Series - Lawyer notice sent to complainant dated 28/07/2013 , returned acknowledgment cards and postal receipts.
Ext.A3 - Photo copy of Lela register
Ext.A4 - Auction details of Branch:- Shornur L F C dated 18/04/2013
Ext.A9 - Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Ext. B1 – Letter(Auction Notice) sent to complainant by the opposite parties.
Ext. B2 series - Returned Acknowledgement cards.
Ext. B3 series - Pawn Ticket Counter Foils.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 - Dinesh P
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
DW1 - Suneesh . N . P
Cost allowed
Nil
