IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday, the 30th day of March, 2017
Filed on 20.01.2016
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.20/2016
Between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. Thomas Mathew Manappuram Finance Ltd.
Parathayil House Muhamma Road
Punnamada Ward Near Indira Junction
Alappuzha – 688 006 Alappuzha
(By Adv. A. Supriya)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant had availed a gold loan from the opposite party on 24.02.2015 by pledging his 9.86 grams of gold ornaments. The amount paid by the opposite party to the complainant as per the loan is Rs.18,700/-. Since he has to pay interest within 8 months, he paid interest of Rs.3,000/- on 1.9.2015. While remitting the interest amount the system has complaints and he received a receipt in white paper. But on 13.12.2015 when the complainant approached for taking the gold ornaments, he came to know that the opposite party auctioned the gold ornaments of the complainant. The opposite party auctioned the gold ornaments before the expiry of the loan period without the consent of the complainant and that caused much mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant had availed the loan during the month of February 2015. As per the terms and conditions accepted by the complainant, the loan was granted for a period of 3 months. The opposite party had issued pawn ticket to the complainant bearing signature of the complainant as well as the branch head in which loan amount, due date, reset period, rate of interest applicable, tenure etc. are clearly mentioned and the same was duly acknowledged by the complainant. The terms and conditions of the loan were explained to him and he has signed on the terms and conditions of the loan and application at the time of taking the loan. The complainant has to pay the interest within the reset period to avoid penal interest and should settle the pledge within one month, which is clearly mentioned in the terms and conditions of the loan application. But the complainant had not paid any amount towards his loan accounts, so increased rate of interest is applicable to his loan accounts as per the terms and conditions of the loan executed by him. The opposite party never claimed interest after the 8th month, since the loan period was for 3 months. Even after a period of three months the complainant never cared to repay the amount or close the account. A demand notice was issued to the complainant on 25.06.2015 demanding to repay the loan amount with interest, failing which the pledged articles will be sent for auction. Even after receiving the notice, the complainant kept silent and pledged articles were sent for auction. After some days he approached the branch requesting for extension of time which was denied. He paid an amount of Rs.3,000/- which was insufficient and the branch informed him the same. Since he was not ready to close the loan, auction proceedings were initiated. The opposite party had complied with all the legal formalities before the pledged articles were sent for auction. Opposite party has every right to sale the pledged ornaments by auction as per the terms and conditions of the loan. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Opposite party was examined as RW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B6.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that complainant pledged two bangles weighed 9.86 grams for Rs.18,700/- with the opposite party. According to the opposite party he had paid interest of Rs.3,000/- on 1.9.2015. In order to substantiate that he has produced the receipt dated 1.9.2015 issued by the opposite party and it marked as Ext.A2. On perusing Ext.A2, it is seen that the seal of the opposite party was affixed on it and towards the statement “cash received,” the signature of somebody was also affixed. While cross examining the opposite party, he stated that the complainant remitted Rs.3,000/- towards interest on 4.9.2015 and on that time his gold ornaments were not auctioned. But Ext.A2 document shows that the complainant had remitted interest on 1.9.2015. According to the opposite party they have auctioned the gold ornaments after giving paper publication and due notices to the complainant. But complainant deposed before the Forum that he had not received any notices from the opposite party. In order to substantiate the contention, opposite party has produced the paper publications, but no notices or acknowledgement were produced. The paper publications produced show that they have made the publication on 17.10.2015 in Deccan Chronicle and Mangalam daily. The question remains is why the opposite party made the publication within a short time after accepting the interest from the complainant. As discussed above, no notices produced to prove that complainant had direct knowledge about the auction. Hence this Forum is constrained to come to the conclusion that there was no notice of auction with respect to the auction of gold ornaments pledged by the complainant and also the paper publication was done within a short period after accepting the interest. Since the interest accepted by the opposite party, the complainant cannot expect that his ornaments will be auctioned without giving notice to him. Thus the auction without the notice is illegal and that amounts to defect and deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party and that said conduct from the part of the opposite party caused monitory loss and much mental agony and pain to the complainant. Hence he is liable to be compensated.
In the result, the complaint is allowed granting the following reliefs:-
- The opposite party is directed to return the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant, on receipt of amount due as on the date of auction in the alternative the opposite party is directed to calculate the value of gold ornaments at the market value on 10.12.2015 and pay back the excess amount after deducting the loan amount as on the date of auction.
- The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her correct by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the day 30th day of March, 2017.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Thomas Mathew (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Receipt dated 1.9.2015
Ext.A2 - Gold Loan receipt
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - N.G. Priyalal (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Gold loan receipt 24.2.2015
Ext.B2 - Receipt dated 5.2.2015
Ext.B3 - Paper publication of Mangalam
Ext.B4 - Gold auction notice in the paper publication
Ext.B5 - Statement of account
Ext.B6 - Auction details
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:- -
