Karnataka

Bellary

CC-108/2014

SMT ABEEDHA KHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANAGER,SKS MICRO FINANCE LTD & ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

SHRI THIPPESWAMY.K

05 Mar 2015

ORDER

FILED ON:	04-07-2014
ORDER ON:	05-03-2015

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BELLARY

 

C.C.No.108 of 201

Present :

 

(1)   Shri. R.Bandachar,

B.Com, LL.B.  (Spl) ……    President

(in-charge)

 

(2) Smt Mary Havila,

B.A.                       ……        Member

 

 

DATED THIS THE 05^th DAY OF MARCH 2015.

 

COMPLAINANT   By-Shri Thippeswamy K, Advocate, Bellary.         //VS//	Abeedha Khan, W/o Noor Ahammed Khan, age: 40 years, Door No.58, 5th cross, III Link, Behind Yallamma Temple, Devinagar, Bellary.
RESPONDENTS       By-Shri  P H Manjunatha, Advocate, Bellary,	1)The Branch Manager, SKS Micro Finance Ltd., 1st floor, Abhi complex, Near BJP Office, S.P. Circle, Bellary-583 103.   2)The Manager, SKS Micro Finance Ltd., III Floor, My Home Tykoon Block-A, 6-3-1192, Kundhan Bagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500 016, Andhra Pradesh.

 

// O R D E R //

 

Per Smt Mary Havila.

 

The complainant filed the complaint against the respondents U/Sec-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.  The complaint in brief is that on 28-11-2012 the respondents granted loan of Rs.31,000/- to the complainant by pledging the gold ornaments weighing 17 grams under Swarna Pushpam Gold Loan  vide I.D.No.2300200057146 and agreed to repay the same with interest,  as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  The complainant received a notice on 31-10-2013 from the respondent no.1 demanding for repayment of loan amount. The complainant approached the respondent no.1 on 03-12-2013 and paid Rs.10,000/- towards loan as well as interest and the respondents issued receipt and adjusted EMI interest of Rs.5,813/- and EMI principal amount of Rs.4,187/-. The respondent no.1 issued another notice dated:                      13-01-2014 to repay the balance principal amount with interest.  The complainant approached the respondents on 19-02-2014, but the respondent no.1 did not receive the amount.  Thereafter, the respondent no.1 has auctioned the gold ornaments without giving opportunity to the complainant to repay the balance loan amount, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  The complainant received a notice from the respondent no.1 on                 26-04-2014 along with a cheque bearing no.457880 for Rs.5,955/-, but she is not ready to encash the said cheque.  The complainant had lodged a complaint against the respondents on 26-04-2014 before Gandhinagar Police, Bellary and the Police called the respondent no.1 who assured before the Police that the said mistake will not be done in future. The complainant got issued legal notice dated: 16-05-2014 to the respondents along with original cheque calling upon them to receive the balance amount and return the gold ornaments pledged by her. The respondents have given vague reply. Therefore, the complaint.

 

3.   The respondents filed the written version stating that all the allegations made in the complaint, except those which are specifically admitted, are denied.  The allegations made in para-1 to 4 of the complaint are true and correct.  The allegations made in para-5 to 8 of the complaint are denied.  There is no cause of action to file the complaint. The complainant has filed the complaint by suppressing the material facts to grab money from the respondents. The complainant approached the respondent no.1 on 28-11-2012 for financial assistance by pledging gold ornaments and borrowed loan of Rs.31,000/- and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 25% p.a. within 9 months.  The complainant has failed to pay the same till June-2012. Therefore, the respondents have issued notices to the complainant calling upon her to repay the loan amount with interest.  The complainant paid Rs.5,813/- towards EMI interest Rs.4,187/- towards principal on 03-12-2013 and asked her to pay the outstanding amount and close the loan account as it had crossed the agreed tenure. The respondents issued a notice dated: 17-01-2014 to the complainant intimating about the auction of her pledged gold ornaments and her loan amount had become overdue and requested to repay the same within 15 days from the date of the said notice to avoid the auction and the same was acknowledged by the complainant.  The respondents visited the complainant’s house on     18-01-2014 and requested to repay the outstanding loan amount within 15 days or else the company will auction the gold ornaments, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.  The respondents have issued paper publication on 19-02-2014 in New Indian Express and on 20-02-2014 in Kannada Prabha informing to the public at large including the complainant about their auction sale of the listed gold ornaments on 24-02-2014.  On 26-02-2014 the company through its approved auctioneers M/s MSTC and as per the RBI guidelines, initiated the auction proceedings and M/s Davanan Jewellers was the successful bidder.  The complainant had an opportunity to redeem the ornament by paying outstanding due amount. Even after that the complainant did not approach the respondents.  The gold ornaments of the complainant fetched a sum of Rs.37,948/- after adjusting accrued interest of Rs.4,000/-, principal of Rs.26,813/-, auction charges of Rs.853/-, advertisement charges of Rs.166/- and third party valuation charges Rs.16/-, totally Rs.31,994/- has to be paid by the complainant to the respondents.  The respondents after adjusting the above mentioned amount there was credit balance of Rs.5,955/- to be paid to the complainant, which was paid to the complainant by way of cheque. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  Therefore, the complaint be dismissed.

4.  The complainant to prove her case, as her evidence, filed her affidavit, which is marked as P.W.1 and got marked 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. The respondents as their evidence, filed one affidavit, which is marked as Rw.1 and got marked 15 documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.15

5.  The written arguments are filed by the complainant as well as by the respondents.

6.  The points that arise for our consideration are;

 

1.	Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the respondent toward her, as alleged in the complaint?
2.	Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint?
3.	What order?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.   The findings on the above points are as under

 

Point No.1:	Accordingly.
Point No.2:	Accordingly.
Point No.3:	As per final order.

 

// R  E A S O N S //

Point No.1: -

 

8.  There is no dispute that on 28-11-2012 the respondents granted loan of Rs.31,000/- to the complainant by pledging her  gold ornaments weighing 17 grams under Swarna Pushpam Gold Loan  vide I.D.No.2300200057146 and agreed to repay the same with interest, as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.

9.  It is the case of the complainant that she approached the respondents on 19-02-2014, but the respondent no.1 did not receive the amount and thereafter, the respondent no.1 has auctioned the gold ornaments without giving opportunity to the complainant to repay the balance loan amount, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part

10.  Per contra the respondents contended that they issued a notice dated: 17-01-2014 to the complainant intimating about the auction of her pledged gold ornaments and her loan amount had become overdue and requested to repay the same within 15 days from the date of the said notice to avoid the auction and  they also issued paper publication on 19-02-2014 in New Indian Express and on 20-02-2014 in Kannada Prabha informing to the public at large about their auction sale of the listed gold ornaments on 24-02-2014.    Further it is contended that on  26-02-2014 the company through its approved auctioneers M/s MSTC and as per the RBI guidelines, initiated the auction proceedings and M/s Davanan Jewellers was the successful bidder and the complainant had an opportunity to redeem the ornament by paying outstanding due amount, but the complainant did not approach the respondents and the gold ornaments of the complainant fetched a sum of Rs.37,948/- after adjusting accrued interest of Rs.4,000/-, principal of Rs.26,813/-, auction charges of Rs.853/-, advertisement charges of Rs.166/- and third party valuation charges Rs.16/-, totally Rs.31,994/- has to be paid by the complainant and the respondents after adjusting the above mentioned amount there was credit balance of Rs.5,955/- to be paid to the complainant, which was paid to the complainant by way of cheque and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

11.  To prove their contention that they have intimated the complainant about the auction of her gold ornaments, the respondents produced the copy of demand form-4 issued to the complainant which is marked as Ex.R.8 and paper publications which are marked as Ex.R.14 and Ex.R.15.  The complainant has not produced any documents to show that she had paid the entire loan amount obtained from the respondents within stipulated time, as per the agreement of the loan. The respondents have promptly issued prior notice to the complainant as well as paper publication regarding sale of auction and issued cheque for the balance of Rs.5,955/- to the complainant. Therefore, deficiency in service cannot be attributed by the complainant against the respondents.   However, the complainant is entitled for the credit balance from the respondents.  With these reasonings, this point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:-

12.  For the reasons discussed under point No.1, the respondents are liable to pay the credit balance amount of Rs.5,955/-  to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings, which shall be as per final order. This point is also answered accordingly.

Point No.3: -

13. In view of the discussions made under Point No.1 and 2, we pass the following;

 

//ORDER//

 

The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5,955/- towards balance credit and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant, within two months from the date of this order.

Inform the parties accordingly.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typescript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open court  this 05TH day of March 2015)

 

 

 

 

	(R.BANDACHAR) PRESIDENT.
	(MARY HAVILA) MEMBER

 

 

 

 

trk