Karnataka

Kolar

CC/63/2017

Sri.Srinivas G - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,Muthoot Finance - Opp.Party(s)

22 May 2019

ORDER

Date of Filing: 18/09/2017

Date of Order: 22/05/2019

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 22^nd DAY OF MAY 2019

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 63 OF 2017

Sri. Srinivas. G,

S/o. Gopal,

Aged About 30 Years,

R/at: Karanjikattee, Kolar.                                       ….  COMPLAINANT.

(In-person)

 

- V/s -

1) The Branch Manager,

Muthoot Finance Limited,

M.B.Road Branch,

Kolar City - 563 101.

Rep. by Sri. K. Narendra Babu, Advocate)

 

2) The Managing Director,

Muthoot Finance Limited,

Muthoot Chambers,

Opp. Saritha Theatre Complex,

Banerji Road, Cochi-682 018.

KERALA – INDIA.

(In-person)                                                                     …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER,

01.   The complainant being an in-person has filed this complaint Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties has sought relief of issuance of directions to OPs to provide proper interest rate to the loan account MAL 556 and compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- for mental and physical agony of him and his wife and family members and also the business loss and health issues arosed to him and his wife and also sought an order of this Forum to maintain the status-quo of the gold ornaments till further orders of this forum and sought for cost and expenses of the proceedings and any other reliefs as this Forum deems to be fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    The complainant availed loan by pledging gold of 103 grams after deduction and net weight 108.5 grams for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- vide loan account No. MAL 556 (0484/MAL/000556).  It is contention of the complainant that, on 17.04.2017 he requested the Branch Manager of Muthoot Finance, Kolar M.B. Road Branch to provide information in respect of his gold loan to clear the loan.  Even after several visits to the said Branch the OP No.1 did not respond to the complainant’s plea.

(b)    It is further contended that, the recovery team from the OP’s company from Bangalore had called the complainant and the same was explained and requested to provide information as sought on 17.04.2017 and assured the complainant need to release the gold item, but they also did not return for it.  And the OP company started sending SMS in the early morning about the loan amount and interest and the same was brought to the notice of the Branch Manager of OP No.1, but OP No.1 told that it was centralized team had sent the messages and assured to resolve it also, by this act of the company made him to suffer mentally.

(c)    It is further contended that, due to this act of OP No.1 he had faced quarrels with his wife and suffered lot of mental agony and damage to his business also.  Meanwhile he was in receipt of auction letter from the OP No.1 as gold ornaments of loan account MAL 556 would be auctioned on 01.09.2017 or 20.09.2017.  On the same day he visited to the OP No.1 office and asked for the information about the letter dated: 17.04.2017, but there was no reply from OP No.1 and said that, notice was issued by the Legal Department and promised him to settle the issue by providing information in one or two days.  But there was no such reply was received by him.  In this regard he had given a legal notice to OPs on 24.08.2017 which was duly served by hand to OPs.

(d)    It is further contention of the complainant that, he had approached Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Kolar District, on 15.09.2017, for clarification and requested for the interest rate fixed by the Karnataka State Government and Karnataka Money Lenders and Pawn Brokers Act 1965 and received information as the interest rate for the secured loans is 14% p.a and for unsecured loans is of 16% per annum and the same is being published in their official website.  As per the notification No. CMW/04/CML/2003, dated: 28.08.2003 of Karnataka Government, maximum rate of interest fixed for all classes of business money lending in the above rates and as per the Money Lenders Act, Sec.39 money lenders who fails to comply with the acts in contravention of any provisions of this Act he may be punished with fine or imprisonment or both. 

 

(e)    It is further contended that, as per Karnataka Prohibition of charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004, any money lender who charges more than that fixed by the state government, shall be punished with imprisonment which may be extended to 3 years and also with fine may be extended to Rs.30,000/-.  Though these are all measures taken by the State Government to protect the public the said OPs company had been charging more than 24% per annum interest and other penalties which are against to the law of land and against to the public interest.  And the rate of interest mentioned on the pledged form is 22% per annum, but as per the State Government of Karnataka there must not be more than 14% per annum for secured loans, but OPs are charging exorbitantly against the law of land.  Because of this act of OPs rendered deficiency in service and thus caused a lot of mental and physical agony to his family so contending the complainant has come up with this complaint by seeking the above set-out reliefs. 

 

(f)     Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted List of documents as follows:-

(i) Loan pledge Form dated: 23.05.2016

(ii) A letter dated: 17.04.2017

(iii) Legal notice before consumer complaint dt: 24.08.2017

(iv) Letter issued by Deputy Registrar, Co-op. Society, Kolar District, Kolar.

(v) Auction Notice by the OP.

 

03.   In response to the notice by this Forum OP No.1 has put its appearance through its learned counsel and submitted written version and OP No.2 has appeared as in-person.

04.   The contention of OP No.1 is that, it denied the entire pleadings of the complainant in toto and contended that, as per Reserve Bank Of India, Chief Manager General Manager notification No.DNBS.204/CJM(ASR)-2009, dated: 02.01.2009 NBFC Board to claim their own interest rates and as per this notification while issuing the loan itself OP has clearly given the interest rate to be paid in the loan pledged form.  So there is no cause of action to file this complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs so prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

04(a).       Along with the version counsel for OP No.1 has submitted following documents:-

1. Reserve Bank of India Notification dated: 02.01.2009
2. Proceedings passed by Ministry of Co-operation dated: 15.06.2010.

 

05.   OP No.2 has not submitted any version and documents nor its evidence.

06.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and also submitted the below mentioned documents:-

(i) Original loan pledge form

(ii) Request letter for providing information of the Loan account

3. Notice before the Consumer complaint
4. Letter issued by Deputy Registrar, Kolar.
5. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala; The Managing Director V/s Abdul Latheef on 30.11.2013 in Appeal No.640/2012
6. Madras High Court; dated: 14.11.2014, Writ Petition No.14627/2012; Ar.Jeyarhuthran V/s The Union of India.
7. Madras High Court dated: 21.02.2014, C.R.P (NPD). MD. No.347/2014; Muthoot Finance Pvt. Ltd. V/s K.S. Ramasamy on 21.02.2014.

 

07.   On behalf of OP No.1 Sri. Anand Kumar, Branch Manager of OP No.1 has sworn his affidavit evidence and submitted the below mentioned documents:-

(i) GPA Photo copy

(ii) Resolution Copy

 

08.   Heard arguments of complainant and on perusal of order-sheet since several opportunities given to OPs, but OPs remained absent hence their arguments was considered as NIL and case is posted for orders.

 

09.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

(1) Is there deficiency in service of OPs?

 

(2) If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as he sought?

 

(3) What order?

 

10.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1) & (2):-      Partly in the Affirmative

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINTS (1) & (2):-

11.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

(a)    The complainant has pleaded in his complaint for seeking interest rate provided to his gold loan vide No.MAL 556 (0484/MAL/000556) to release the gold ornaments and since the OPs have not provided the same thus rendered deficiency of service and sought for the reliefs as in the pleadings.  Contrary to this OP No.1 has submitted that, there is no deficiency of service on their part because while filing the loan itself the rate of percentage of interest to the client has been within the knowledge of the complainant and he agreed and signed to the pledged loan agreement and thus there is no need to provide subsequent interest rates as sought by the complainant.  Since the complainant said loan come to an auction, to escape from the liability the complainant has filed this false complaint.

 

(b)    On perusal of original customer copy of gold pledged dated: 23.05.2016 it reads as below:-

 

Rate of interest is 22% p.a.(Effective annualized rate is 22%).  However, rebate as below will be available for early payment of the interest

If paid within	Rebate	Effective Rate of Interest
3 Month	4% p.a.	18% p.a.
6 Month	1% p.a.	21% p.a.
Above 6 months	0% p.a.	22% p.a.

 

And also this complainant has signed for this agreement and there is no dispute with regard to it.  It reveals that in our view this complainant has agreed and signed as per the above claim loan interest and availed the loan and after availing the loan at the time of repayment of the said loan the question of interest rates charged to him as per para-15 of the pleadings of the complainant would not arise at all it amounts to afterthought questionery.  Hence it cannot be considered in any manner.

 

(c)    Of course there are three classes of rate of interest to be paid with three different durations has been seen in the aforesaid claim.  Among these, what exactly the rate of interest has been charged to this complainant for the said gold loan, it is bound duty of OP No.1 to provide the same when the complainant asked for it vide letter dated: 17.04.2017.  By not giving information to this letter OP No.1 has rendered deficiency of service in their service thus liable to pay compensation to complainant for it.  Hence we hold that, due to not given information to complainant letter dated: 17.04.2017 by OP, the complainant had faced this legal expenses to approach Forum.  So OP No.1 should liable to collect the interest for the said loan till 17.04.2017 only.

 

(d)    Since there is no any sufficient oral or documentary evidence to hold deficiency of service of OP No.2 has not submitted by the complainant hence we find no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 are in partly affirmative.

 

POINT (3):-

12.   In view of the above discussions on Point (1) & (2) we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint filed by the complainant is Allowed-in-part as against OP No.1 with cost of Rs.2,000/- and the same is dismissed as against OP No.2 with no costs.

02.   The OP No.1 is herewith directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and also herewith directed to issue interest rate as requested by the complainant vide letter dated: 17.04.2017 so as to enable the complainant to release the gold ornaments as per the loan No.MAL 556 (0484/MAL/000556) by charging the rate of interest to the principle amount as per their schedule up to 17.04.2017 that was the letter issued by the complainant to OPs to release the gold which should be complied by OP No.1 within 30 days from the date of this order.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 22^nd DAY OF MAY 2019)

 

LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT