IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 16th day of September 2021.
Filed on 26-06-2020
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. Sholy P.R, B.A.L,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.142/2020
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Syam.P 1. The Branch Manager
Syam Nivas Muthoot Finance
Thathampally.P.O Kaichoondi.Jn.
Alappuzha Avalookkunnu.P.O
(Party in person) Thondankulangara Ward
Alappuzha
2. The Chief Executive Officer Muthoot Finance
Muthoot Chamber
Opp. Saritha Theater
Banarji Road, Kochi-682018
(Adv. P.K.Mathew for Ops)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
Opposite parties No.1 and 2 are the branch manager and chief executive officer of M/s Muthoot Finance. On 19.12.19 complainant pledged a gold necklace weighing 47 grams and availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. Complainant was directed to pay interest @ 900/- per month within 3 months. It was informed that if he makes any default the interest will be Rs.2,700/- per month.
2. During February when the complainant visited the office for paying interest there was a strike and so he was unable to pay the same. Thereafter when he went to the branch to pay interest they demanded Rs.2,700/- per month. It caused heavy monetary loss to the complainant. On 26.05.2020 complainant closed the entire loan account by paying an interest of Rs.8,500/-. Complainant had to pay only Rs.4950/- for the period of 5 ½ months. However opposite parties collected an amount of Rs.3550/- in excess and it was deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. Hence complaint is filed for realizing an amount of Rs.3550/- being the excess interest paid and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony.
3. Opposite parties filed a joint version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is frivolous, vexatious, scandalous and it is filed for abusing the process of this Commission and harassing the opposite parties. Complainant is not a consumer.
4. Complainant availed a gold loan from the Kaichoondimukku branch of M/s Muthoot finance. On 19.12.2019 he pledged gold ornaments and took a loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. According to him the monthly interest is Rs.900/-. But actually it is one thousand and it is a monthly interest payment scheme. It was informed to the customer at the time of availing the loan. Next interest payment date was on 19.01.2020. According to him he came during February to pay interest and he could not pay the same due to a strike. However the branch was not closed during the strike and if he had any difficulty for paying interest he could have remitted the same by online.
5. On 26.05.2020 he remitted a total amount of Rs.1,08,500/- and closed the loan. The branch was functioning in February which can be proved through documents. Interest was not paid during the month of January ie, after one month. Complainant has no cause of action and amount of compensation claimed is exorbitant. There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties and so the complaint is only to the dismissed with compensatory cost.
6. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration :-
- Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.3550/- as claimed?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation?
- Reliefs and costs?
7. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 to B3 from the side of the opposite parties.
8. Point Nos.1 to 3
PW1 is the complainant in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1. During cross examination Ext.B1and B2 were marked.
9. RW1 is the branch manager of M/s Muthoot finance Ltd., Kaichoondimukku Branch.
10. On 19/12/2019 PW1, the complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the 1st opposite party which is a branch of 2nd opposite party by pledging a gold necklace weighing 47 grams. At the time of availing the loan it was informed that interest will be Rs. 900/- per month, if it is paid within 3 months. However when the complainant visited the office of the 1st opposite party for paying interest during February there was a strike and he was unable to enter the office and pay interest. When he visited the office later he was asked to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 2,700/- per month. On 26/5/2020 he closed the loan by paying the principle amount along with an interest of Rs.8,500/-. According to him he was bound to pay only Rs. 4950/- for 5 ½ months, whereas Rs.3,550/- was collected in excess. Hence he has filed the complaint for realizing the amount of Rs. 3,550/- which was collected in excess and Rs.25,000/- for mental agony. Opposite parties admitted the loan transaction in the version. According to them though there was a strike the branch was functioning and so the contention that PW1 could not pay the interest is unfounded. If he had difficulty in paying the interest directly, he could have paid the same through online. As per the scheme the interest had to be paid every month. Since PW1 did not pay the amount he is not entitled to claim the benefit of the scheme. Hence the frivolous complaint is only to be dismissed. Complainant got examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 was marked. During cross examination Ext.B1 and B2 were marked. The branch manager of the 1st opposite party was examined as RW1 and Ext.B3 was marked.
11. Admittedly PW1 availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 19/12/2019 by pledging gold ornament. The case advanced by PW1 is that if the interest is paid within 3 months he had to pay Rs.900/- per month. When he visited the office for payment during February since there was a strike he could not pay the amount. Per contra the case advanced by RW1 is that the interest had to be paid every month starting from the 1st month of pledge. Since PW1 did not pay interest or visited branch during January he is not entitled to claim the benefit of the scheme. According to PW1 since there was a strike he could not visit the office. However according to RW1 eventhough there was a strike the bank was functioning. To prove the same they produced Ext.B3 copy of cash book in which several transactions are shown during the said period. During cross examination PW1 admitted that the transactions are governed by Ext.B1 signed by him. Ext.B1 shows the interest rate for pledge. It is seen that there are various slabs of interest rate. Starting from 30 days, 90 days, 180days etc.. If the interest is paid within 30 days ie, during 1st month itself the effective rate is only 11.9%. Admittedly PW1 could not pay interest during the 1st month and even according to him he visited the office only during February which is born out from the complaint. From Ext.B1 it is clear that if the interest is paid within one month one can avail the scheme of lesser interest. PW1 contented that he could not pay interest during February due to the strike according to RW1 though there was a strike the branch was functioning. It is proved by Ext.B3 copy of cash book also.
12. From Ext.B2 statement of account it is seen that though the total amount payable including principle amount was Rs. 1,10,531/- the transaction was closed by paying an amount of Rs.1,08,500/-. So it can be seen that the bank had given Rs. 2000/- discount for the transaction. The evidence on record shows that since PW1 could not pay interest during the 1st month the interest was increased. According to him an amount of Rs.3,550/- was collected in excess. But as per the scheme which is born out from Ext.B1 document one has to start payment of interest during the 1st month itself to avail discount in the interest rate. Since it is not paid the bank is justified in collecting more interest. Though Pw1 stated that he could not pay interest due to the strike in the branch, Ext.B3 shows that the branch was functioning. Further it is seen that Rs.2000/- was given as discount when the transaction was closed. In said circumstances as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties PW1 could not point out any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties and so he is not entitled for any relief. These points are found against the complainant.
13. Point No.4:-
In the result, complaint is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their respective cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 16th day of September, 2021.
Sd/- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Syam.P(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Bank Receipt dtd.26/5/2020
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Babu Mohan.P (Op Manager)
Ext.B1 - Copy of Loan Sanction Letter
Ext.B2 - Gold Loan Ledger/Transaction Details
Ext.B3 - Copy of Cash Book
//True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
