Date of filing: 21.04.2014.
Date of disposal: 16.12.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Tuesday, the 16th day of December, 2014
C.C.No.108 of 2014
Between:
Dasari Amareshvar, S/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, Aged about 35 years, R/o.D.No.29-26-65, Jadaagamvari Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
…..Complainant.
And
1. The Chiarman & Managing Director, M/s India Infoline Finance Ltd., Regd. Office IIFL, Sun Infotech Parl, House, Rd. No.16B, Plot No.B-23, MIDC, Wagale Estate, Thane – 500 604.
2. M/s India Infoline Finance Ltd., Rep: by its Manager, Y. Srinivas, D.No.44-1-41, 1st Floor, Opp: Post Office, Eluru Road, Gunadala, Vijayawada – 520 004.
3. K. Prem Kumar, CSE, M/s India Infoline Finance Ltd., D.No.44-1-41, 1st Floor, Opp: Post Office, Eluru Road, Gunadala, Vijayawada – 520 004.
4. M. Kishore, CSE, M/s India Infoline Finance Ltd., D.No.44-1-41, 1st Floor, Opp: Post Office, Eluru Road, Gunadala, Vijayawada – 520 004.
5. G. Kedar, Auditor, M/s India Infoline Finance Ltd., D.No.44-1-41, 1st Floor, Opp: Post Office, Eluru Road, Gunadala, Vijayawada – 520 004.
6. B. Narasimharao, Security, M/s India Infoline Finance Ltd., D.No.44-1-41, 1st Floor, Opp: Post Office, Eluru Road, Gunadala, Vijayawada – 520 004.
7. Ch. Satyanarayana, Vigilance Office, M/s India Infoline Finance Ltd., D.No.44-1-41, 1st Floor, Opp: Post Office, Eluru Road, Gunadala, Vijayawada – 520 004.
.. … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 01.12.2014, in the presence of Sri D. Anil Kumar, advocate for complainant; opposite parties 1,2 and 4 to 7 remained absent; Sri Ch.S.R.C. Murthy, advocate for 3rd opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This complaint is filed by complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 and 2 by showing the opposite parties 3 to 7 as proforma parties with a prayer to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, to restore the pledged ornaments of the complainant covered by gold loan A/c.No.GL30006804 intact, not to reckon any interest from 7.12.2013 on the principal loan amount of Rs.95,500/-, to grant costs of complaint and for other reliefs.
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submitted that the 1st opposite party is running finance business in the name and style of M/s. India Infoline Finance Ltd., which deals with gold loan having registered office at Thane and the 2nd opposite party is one of the branches of 1st opposite party at Vijayawada. The 2nd opposite party affairs are looked after by its Branch Manager. Whereas the opposite parties 3 to 7 are employees of 2nd opposite party. On 29-7-2013 the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and expressed his willingness to pledge three gold ornaments covered by gross weight of 53.20 gms and the 2nd opposite party having verified the gold chains sanctioned loan of Rs.95,500/- to the complainant and also took the photographs of chains and complainant. On the same day, the 2nd opposite party issued sanctioned letter in the name of complainant by mentioning the rate of interest etc. The said Gold loan Account Number is GL3006804. While so, on 7-12-2013 the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party who is in charge of 2nd opposite party and expressed his willingness to clear the entire gold loan. On that the 3rd opposite party brought the gold ornaments, but to the utter surprise of complainant, some part of two chains among three chains were cut and damaged. When the complainant expressed dissatisfaction, the 3rd opposite party given a copy of damaged chains to the complainant in the presence of other employees of the company. Further the 3rd opposite party asked the complainant to pay the amount and take delivery of the pledged ornaments. Though the complainant asked the 3rd opposite party to come with a solution in the matter and compensate the complainant for damages, but of no use. The complainant got issued a notice on 25.1.2014 to the opposite parties, but in vain. Hence the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties 1 to 7. The opposite parties 1, 2, 4 to 7 did not made their appearance and called absent. The 3rd opposite party filed version denying the material allegations of the complaint and contended that as per Clause No.5G of contract, the company shall have no liability for any loss or damage caused to any pledged articles due to any reason what so ever except for gross negligence of IIFL or its employees. It is further contended that as per the terms and conditions of loan, in clause No.16' any dispute arising out of, or in connection with the present loan transaction shall be referred to and resolved by the process of arbitration. It is further contended that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant will not come under the definition of consumer and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Finally prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. The 3rd opposite party filed his affidavit, but no documents marked.
4. Heard complainant and perused the written arguments submitted by 3rd opposite party.
5. Now the point that arises for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in not returning the pledged gold ornaments intact to the complainant?
- If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
6. Point No.1 : On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), it is clear that the complainant has availed gold loan of Rs.95,500/- on 29-7-2013 from the 2nd opposite party company, which is admittedly branch office of 1st opposite party, under Gold Loan A/c.No.GL3006804, by pledging three gold chains having net weight of 53.20 gms. Ex.A1 sanction letter dt.29.7.2013 issued by 2nd opposite party reveals the name of complainant, photograph of complainant, photographs of the gold chains. Ex.A1 further reveals the principal due date as 28.7.2014 and interest due date as 28.1.2014 and the sanctioned amount is 95,500/-. The main grievance of the complainant is that on 7-12-2013 he approached the 2nd opposite party for repayment of entire loan amount and on that date, the 3rd opposite party being the in charge of 2nd opposite party brought the gold chains and on verification of the same, the complainant was shocked because of damage to the chains. The complainant demanded the 3rd opposite party to deliver the gold chains as in tact as they were on the date of pledge, but the 3rd opposite party failed to deliver the same intact and on the other hand, asked the complainant to take delivery of same only. The complainant filed Ex.A2 signed by 3rd opposite party, which is a photograph of damaged chains. Admittedly perusal of Ex.A2 discloses that there is a variation in the photographs under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The two gold chains are in broken stage. The complainant after wandering around the opposite party No.2 office, having vexed with their attitude, got issued legal notice under Ex.A3.
7. In the regard, the contention of the 3rd opposite party who only made his appearance in this matter is that the company shall not shall have no liability for any loss or damage caused to any pledged articles due to any reason what so ever except for gross negligence of IIFL or its employees. It is further contended that as per the terms and conditions of loan, any dispute arising out of, or in connection with the present loan transaction shall be referred to and resolved by the process of arbitration. Except that the 3rd opposite party has not denied the fact that the said gold chains are broken. Admittedly as seen from clause No.5 of sanction letter under Ex.A1, it is clear that the company shall not have no liability for any loss or damage caused to any pledged articles due to any reason what so ever except for gross negligence of IIFL or its employees. In this case, as on the date of sanction letter under Ex.A1, the gold chains are in good condition and when the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for repayment of loan amount on 7-12-2013, they were in broken condition. Ex.A1 and A2 discloses the said fact. But in the short period of three months only, the gold chains are broken, which goes to show that there is gross negligence in handling and storing the pledged articles on the part of the 2nd opposite party and its employees. Further the 3rd opposite party also not assigned any reason for damage of gold chain. As and when the customers like complainant approached for gold loans by keeping utmost faith and confidence on the opposite party company, it is bounden duty of the opposite parties to keep the pledged ornaments as intact. As such the contention of 3rd opposite party that as per clause No.5, the company shall have no liability for any loss or damage caused to pledged articles cannot be accepted and we hold that there is gross negligence on the part of 2nd opposite party and its employees.
8. The further contention of 3rd opposite party that as per clause No.16 of loan agreement, any dispute arising out of, or in connection with the present loan transaction shall be referred to and resolved by the process of arbitration. In general, if there is any default in the payment of amounts by complainant, the opposite parties 1 and 2 shall resolve the matter through arbitration. But in the case on hand, there is a damage in the gold chains which is purely due to negligence of opposite party employees. As such there is no need to refer the matter to arbitration for reconciliation. The opposite party sanctioned loan to the complainant by collecting interest is nothing but rendering service for consideration. As such the complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act.
9. The other contention of the 3rd opposite party as seen from the written arguments is that the Ex.A2 does not contain seal. Perusal of version and Ex.A2 discloses that they wee signed by the same person. The said individual who signed on the Ex.A2 being an educated man ought to have put seal of the company on Ex.A2. Mere non putting of seal on Ex.A2 does not reduce the validity of Ex.A2. Further the said contention was not mentioned in version by 3rd opposite party. Further the 1st opposite party authorized the 3rd opposite party to act on behalf of company in this matter as seen from authorization letter filed by 3rd opposite party along with version. As such the said contention of 3rd opposite party has no force.
10. Perusal of record further discloses that the opposite parties 1 and 2 issued notice under Ex.A4 to complainant that they are going to conduct auction of the gold articles. On the petition filed by the complainant, this Forum has ordered vide the orders in I.A.No.113/14, dt.18.8.2014 not to conduct any auction in respect of gold articles of complainant till the main case is disposed of. The issuance of notice for auction even though there is gross negligence on their part also amounts to unfair trade practice.
11. In view of the above circumstances, we hold that there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 only. Further the complainant also not made claim against the opposite parties 3 to 7. As such in our opinion, granting of compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- besides ordering to hand over the gold chains in tact with same weight would meet the ends of justice.
Point No.2:
12. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to hand over the three gold chains in tact as taken on the date of sanction of loan with same weight besides payment of compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and costs of Rs.1,000/-. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to collect interest from the complainant thereon till 07-12-2013 along with the principal amount of Rs.95,500/- (Rupees ninety five thousand and five hundred only). The miscellaneous applications if any in this case shall stands closed. The other claims of complainant also stands dismissed. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 16th day of December, 2014.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite parties: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 29.07.2013 Original copy of sanction letter issued by OPs.
Ex.A2 07.12.2013 Photocopy of damaged pledged gold ornaments.
Ex.A3 25.01.2014 Copy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OPs.
Ex.A4 08.05.2014 Original copy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
On behalf of the opposite parties: - Nil-
PRESIDENT (FAC).
