Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/121

C. LATHIKA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANAGER, MUTHOOT FINANCE PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

G. BHAGAVAT SINGH

30 Sep 2014

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 121/14

 

JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2014

 (Against the order   in CC No.201/11 on the file of CDRF,   Kollam, dated 10/02/14) 

 

PRESENT

SMT. A. RADHA                          :   MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :          MEMBER

 

Lathika. C.,

Saroja Ganga,

Nedungolam P.O.,

Kollam (Now residing at ‘Saroj Ganga’                           APPELLANT

43/1314-B), Firoz Gandhi Lane,

Jetty Road, Vaduthala PO,

Ernakulam-682023    

 

(By Adv. Sri. G.Bhagavat Singh)  

 

V/s.

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Muthoot Finance (P) Ltd.,

South Paravoor Branch, Rajamma          

Narayanan Building, Paravoor PO,

Kollam-691301

 

1. Muthoot Finance (Pvt) Ltd.,                                     RESPONDENTS

R/by Manager-Legal-Affairs,

Muthoot Finance (Pvt) Ltd.,

Muthoot Group-Zonal Office,

Pearl Heaven Muthoot,

Vazhuthakkaud,

Thiruvananthapuram-695014

 

 

1. The Managing Director,

Muthoot Finance (Pvt.) Ltd.,                                 

Central Office, Banerji Road,                                RESPONDENTS

Opposite Saritha Theater

Ernakulam – 682018

 

(By Adv. Sri.C.S. Rajmohan)

 

JUDGMENT

 

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :          MEMBER

 

                  

          This appeal is directed against the order dated 10/02/2014 of the District Consumer Forum, Kollam made in CC No.201/2011.

          2.       The appellant’s case in the Lower Forum was based on the following facts that the appellant had pawned 52 gms (6.5 soverigns) of 22ct gold ornaments with the respondents and obtained an amount of Rs.21,000/- as gold loan on 22/09/2003, in accordance to receipt number G.L.No.00461699.  Later appellant on April 2004 approached 1^st respondent to redeem the gold by paying the principal amount along with interest but the 1^st respondent refused to redeem the gold stating the reason that said gold had been transferred to the head office by mistake and requested time, this occurred on multiple occasions.  On 2005 the appellant left Nedungolam and settled in Ernakulam and later on 23/05/2011 appellant approached 1^st respondent for redeeming gold ornaments but again respondent refused to comply and hence the pledged gold was not returned.  On 25/05/2011 the appellant sent a legal notice to 1^st respondent, to which a reply was sent by the respondents and the appellant claimed a loss of Rs.2,50,000/-due to the fraudulent act conducted by the respodents.  In the Lower Forum respondents filed their version contending that the petition is to be dismissed in-limini on the solid reason that it is terribly barred by limitation and is bad for non-joinder of parties and mis-joinder of parties also and appellant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, that the appellant filed this complaint on experimental basis due to the reason that the market value of the gold is alarmingly increased and by sending an advocate notice trying to create artificial cause of action.  The appellant after pledging the gold ornaments never came to the bank even after accepting the notices.  The respondents hence prayed to dismiss the petition by invoking Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act with cost and compensatory cost of the opposite parties.

          3.       The Learned forum on examining the parties and based on records dismissed the case primarily relying on the condition No.2 as per Ext.P1.  Appellant on examination admitted that she pledged gold ornaments on 22/09/2003 and known about the last date for remitting interest without fine is on 22/12/2003 and also known about the conditions stated on the back side of Ext. P1.  The appellant provided no documented evidence to prove that she had approached with principal amount and the interest till 25/05/2011 to the 1^st respondent.  The Forum pointed that there is no violation of conditions stated Ext.P1 and no positive steps were taken by appellant to close the transaction i.e. to remit principal amount and interest to opposite parties within 13 months.  The Forum conceded that the appellant approached / demanded / intimated to the 1^st repondent regarding the gold ornaments pawned only after 7 ½  years and filed this complaint only after 8 years.  The Ld. Forum considering the fact that appellant is a literarate lady and being employed as a teacher concluded appellant is not entitled to get any reliefs and found that there is no deficiency in service from respondent and hence dismissed the complaint without costs.

          4.       We heard the counsel for the appellant / complainant and respondents, perused the material placed on record.  Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside as prayed by the appellant / complainant?

          5.       In our opinion the cause of action as raised by the appellant shall not be from the time the legal notice has been sent to the respondents.  The right of appellant extinguishes to seek legal remedy ends two years from the final date on which the appellant should have redeemed her gold from the respondents.  However the limitation to seek legal remedy is not created with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but it is to ensure that such remedies are not resort to dilatory tatics and seek remedy without delay.  In accordance to section 24 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act prescribes maximum 2 years period for filing a complaint but the period is counted from the date of cause of action for filing of the complaint arose.  There is no prescribed formula in calculating the exact date of cause of action but a considered view even if the appellant had approached the Forum well within the time frame or at least had issued a notice to the respondents within two years after the expiry of final date as specified in Ext.A1, the cause of action would had been different.  As pointed by the Ld. Forum being a literate person the appellant would have very well understood the terms and conditions clearly specified in the receipt which the appellant received on pawning her gold ornaments.  Accepting the terms, a binding agreement is been made and hence it is clearly stated that within 13 months all outstanding amount will be paid and cleared or else the respondents shall have the right to sell the gold and recover their loss.  Once, the appellant availed the loan, as per the Rules and Regulations, referred in Ext.A1, later on, the appellant could not complain if the conditions were not complied.

          6.       The onus of proof is on the appellant to prove satisfactorily that she had approached the respondents several occasions in order to redeem her pledged gold ornaments; mere allegations will not suffice the court to comply or consider such affirmations.  The appellant should have ought to have prudently acted and as raised by the appellant herself on shifting the residence from Nedungolam to Ernakulam at least the appellant should had given in writing to the respondents on her change in address.  The appellant having failed in fulfilling her duty and complying the terms have accused the respondents on baseless contentions hence we are of the opinion that the Bank has not committed any negligent act, or deficiency in service.  The District  Forum, considering all these facts, has correclty recorded findings, and dismissed the complaint, legally, based upon the sound principle, and we endorse the same, concluding the appeal is devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed.

          For all the above said reasons we find that there is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.  In the result the appeal is dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.

 

                                                         SANTHAMMA THOMAS :      MEMBER

 

 

 

1. RADHA  :       MEMBER

 

 

nb