Date of filing:-05/07/2017.

Date of Order:-24/09/2018.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No. 29 of 2017.

Kishor Chandra Meher S/o Rama Meher, aged about 62(sixty two) years, Occupation Vegetables business, R/o-Bargarh, Ward No.2, Beheratikra, P.o/P.s/Dist. Bargarh.

..... ..... ..... Complainant.

Vrs

1. The Branch Manager, Mannapuram Finance Ltd., Bargarh, Bhatli Chowk, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh ..... ...... .....Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Sri H.C. Panda, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party:- Sri R.Bhoi, Advocate with other Advocates.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).

Dt.24/09/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-

Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-

Brief fact of the case ;-

The case of the Complainant is that he has obtained a Loan amounting to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand)only from the Opposite Party by pledging some gold ornament weighing 16.5 gms vide pledging No-0133440700007725 on Dt.18.08.2016. And in course of time within five to six months repaid an amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only in two installments along with the agreed amount of interest, And subsequently there after the Complainant was willing to repay the rest amount of the said Loan, but the Opposite Party did not receive, then seeing no other alternative sent him with pleader notice on Dt.05.06.2017 but till yet he has neither replied to his said notice nor come up to settle the matter by receiving the Loan amount and to refund the pledged amount of gold to the Complainant which as per him amounts to deficiencies of service and unfair trade practice on his part, hence the complainant has filed the case, and in support of his case has relied on the following Documents:-

1. Regd Notice Dt.05.06.2017 to the B.M., Mannapuram Finance Ltd.

2. Postal receipt Dt.05.06.2017.

Having gone through the Complaint, it’s supporting documents and on hearing the learned counsel for the Complainant the case was admitted and Notice was served on the Opposite Party, and in response to the same the Opposite Party appeared and filed his version through his Advocate admitting the loan part of the complaint but has stated therein that the said loan was sanctioned under certain rules and regulation of the company and as per the same the loan was sanctioned for a period of ninety days with an interest @ 24 %(twenty four percent) per annum and that the Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.21,684/-(Rupees twenty one thousand six hundred eighty four)only against the principal amount and towards interest and charges and has claimed that again the Complainant agreed to renew the loan amount of Rs.11,684/-(Rupees eleven thousand six hundred eighty four)only @ 12 %(twelve percent interest) interest per annum for one month, further he has made an averment that the loan amount was settled between them and the Complainant paid further amount of Rs.4,097/-(Rupees four thousand ninety seven)only and the said loan amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only was renewed as loan for another one month with an interest @ 14% (fourteen percent) per annum but later on he concealed himself from appearing before the Opposite Party to repay his pending dues with interest and subsequently changed his local address and Phone Numbers, so while the Opposite Party tried to contact him he failed to locate him as such claims not be deficient in rendering any service on his part and so the allegation made against him is not maintainable and the case is liable to be dismissed.

Consequent upon which the pledged items of gold of the Complainant was remitted to their head office situated at Bhubaneswar and the same was auctioned there and balance amount of Rs.23,550/-(Rupees twenty three thousand five hundred fifty)only after adjustment of the dues on him was sent to the Complainant in shape of cheque but was returned back as was not traceable in his given address and hence is not liable for any punitive action of the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, and the same is liable to be dismissed. And in it’s support has relied on the following documents:-

1. Staement of accounts

2. Address of the Opposite Party supplied at the time of the Loan was sanctioned.

3. Customer part folio.

4. Surplus status.

5. Auction register.

6. Demand promissory note of the Complainant.

7. Pawn ticket and other documents found relevant for the purpose of the case.

8. Loan Paper .

Having gone through the materials available in the record and on hearing the submission passed by the respective lawyers of the Parties, And hearing both the parties personally being present before the Forum the following issues are to be examined for proper adjudication of the case.

1. Whether the O.P.is deficient in rendering service to the Complainant ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as sought for ?

Firstly while examining the Issue No.1(one) we observed that the Complainant is a permanent resident of the Bargarh town which was also admitted by the present Branch Manager of the Opposite Party financial institution coupled with the certificate of Branch Head regarding his status and it is also observed that the gold ornament which was pledged by the Complainant in the custody of the Opposite Party has been admittedly auctioned, but here the question arises that, if the Complainant could not be traced out since he has alleged to have changed his address and phone numbers, what other remedial measure has been taken by the Opposite Party to ensure his present status, and to our observation he has not taken any other steps as has been prescribed in the provision of law since it is a financial institution and the valuable ornaments has been kept in his custody, it is his bounden duty to serve him with notice prior to the auction, besides the very action of the Opposite Party seems to be ambiguous and unfair trade practice, because the Complainant has been trying to repay the dues pending against him and the same cannot be discarded only on the basis of the denial plea of the Opposite Party, further more the schemes as has been elaborated in it’s version is not proved to be in consonance with the guideline prescribed by any authorities of the Reserve Bank of India and also the Banking Regulation Act nor any details of the same has been placed before the forum for it’s perusal and examination.

On the contrary he has admittedly sold away the pledged items without any prior notice and till yet has not taken any concrete steps as prescribed by the law to prove that his presence or his where about could not be traced out, further more after being served with notice from the Forum has also not taken any care to settle the matter, if at all has any intention to repay his said cheque amount is there, which could have done seeking permission of the Forum instead of lingering the same with different pleas, which in our view is an act of unfair trade practice coupled with deficiencies of service on his part hence is liable for the action as envisaged under the prescribed provision of the Act, And accordingly our answer is expressed in favor of the Complainant.

Secondly while determining the question of the entitlement of the relief as has been sought for by the Complainant, in our prudent view since it is an admitted fact that the aforesaid items of gold of the Complainant has been kept in the custody of the Opposite Party it is his bounden duty to ascertain his present status prior to the said action as has been dealt with the same by us in our foregoing paragraphs in details, to which he has failed squarely, so in our consensus view the Complainant is entitled to the value of his pledged items of gold in it’s entire weight in terms of money and other relief too. Hence our answer is expressed in favor of the Complainant. Thus our order follows.

O R D E R.

Hence the Opposite Party is directed to refund the total pledged weight of gold i.e. 15.9450 gms @ Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only per grams with making charges of the same @ Rs. 300/-(Rupees three hundred)only per grams prevailing at the time of the notice served on him by the pleader of the Complainant with an interest @ 12 % (twelve percent) per annum after deducting loan amount dues on him along with a statement of account in detail from the date of the Auction i.e. 23/03/2017 of the said pledged items of gold of the Complainant till the date of Order, and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only in liue of compensation and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only litigation expenses within thirty date of receipt of the Order in default of which the entire amount would carry an interest @ 16%(sixteen percent) per annum till the realization of money.

Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Forum, in the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party and the same is disposed off to-day i.e. on Dt.24/09/2018

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

             ( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)

                                   P r e s i d e n t.

                                                                               I agree,

                                                     ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)

                                                                   M e m b e r (W)