Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/254/2018

Raamakannan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, M/s. Muthoot Fincorp Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

X.Selvam Soundar

18 Nov 2022

ORDER

                                                                                                          Complaint presented on:05.08.2010                                                                     

                                                                                     Date of disposal            :18.11.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                  TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                              : MEMBER-I

                                THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA     : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.254/2018

 

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

•  
• Mr.Raamakannan
• S.o.Ramakrishnan,

No.1/35A, 2^nd Street,

Velayudham Colony,

Saligramam, Chennai-600 093.

1.  

 

•  

 

The Manager,

M/s.Muthoot Fincorp Ltd.,

No.245/1, First Floor,

Arcot Road, Vadapalani.

                                                          ….     Opposite Party

 

Counsel for the complainant                      :Party -In-person

 

Counsel for the opposite party                 :M/s.V.Suthakar  and 2 others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,  : MEMBER-I

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this commission to

to hand over the pawned jewel to complainant after receiving principle and interest due at a rate of 18%, to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ as compensation for the mental agony due to deficiency of service.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No.361/2010.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.254/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted that the opposite party is doing pown broker business. The complainant has approached the opposite party and obtain loan by pledging his jewel for the loan amount of Rs.48,000/-.  Further submitted that the date of pledging the jewelry the opposite party has deducted Rs.960/- towards one month interest in advance and Rs.40/- towards receipts charges and the opposite party has dispersed only Rs.47000/- to the complainant.  The complainant has regularly pay the interest for the loan amount but the opposite party has instructed the complainant to pay interest for the month of November 2009 which was already deducted by the opposite party. Further the opposite party has refused to receive the interest from 04.01.2010 to till date on 05.07.2010. On 05.07.2010 the complainant has approached the opposite party to redeem the jewelry by repaying the loan amount with interest for seven months, but the opposite party demanded to pay Rs.57258/- and refused to hand over the above jewelry as pledged with the opposite party.The complainant submitted that as per the law the interest payable is only 18% p.a.  But to the complainants shock and surprise the opposite party has demanded to pay 30% of interest instead of prescribed 18% of interest p.a. as per law. Hence the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party on 10.07.2010 and replied by the opposite party on 21.07.2010. The complainant submitted that opposite party’s demanded for higher rate of interest is unlawful and act of the opposite party deducting the one month interest for the loan amount at the time of dispersing the loan amount is clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant prays for handing over of pawned jewels and compensation. Hence the complaint.  

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:-

          The opposite parties deny allegations made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitter hereunder and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party stated that the complainant pledged the Gold chain weighing 40 gms and availed loan of Rs.48000/- on 04.11.2009. The opposite party availed the loan under the gold loan scheme at the rate of interest of 24% p.a. for the first 3 months and the pledger failed to pay the interest, the interest will be charged at the rate of 27% p.a. from the 4^th month to 6^th month. Even the 6^th month the pledges fail to pay any interest then the interest would be charged at the rate of 30% p.a. and after 6 months if he fails to pay the interest then he is liable to pay penal interest.  In the case the complainant obtained Gold Loan on 04.11.2009 of Rs.48000/- and till date he has not paid any amount and consequently on 09.04.2011 a sum of Rs.70485/- is due and payable by the complainant.  Inspite of several reminders from the opposite party the complainant neglected to pay neither the principal nor the interest. On 01.03.2010 & 05.05.2010 the opposite party issued notice to the complainant for repaying the amount and to pay the pledged amount together with penal interest. On 05.07.2010 the complainant approached the opposite party to redeem the jewels the opposite party demanded the due to a sum of Rs.57258/- and called upon the opposite party to hand over the pledged jewels after receiving the principal amount together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The lawyer notice dated 10.07.2010 the opposite party gave a reply on 21.07.2010. The opposite party sent several reminders to the complainant to pay interest as well as the principal and the complainant has not paid any amount. Hence there was no deficiency in service as alleged in the complainant.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1.Whether the complainant is a consumer and a the complaint is maintainable before this commission?

2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite party?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainant has filed written argument, proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked on their side.The opposite party have filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.B1to B5 were marked on his side.

4.Point No.1 and 2.

          The complainant pledged his 40gm gold chain with the Opposite party for  a loan amount of Rs.48,000/-, but the opposite party dispersed a sum of Rs. 47,000/- on the same day after deducting Rs. 960/-towards advance interest and Rs. 40/ towards receipt charges. The complainant further alleged that he regularly approached the opposite party to pay the interest, when he was forced to pay his first month interest which was advancely deducted from the loan amount by the opposite party for which the complainant denied instantly and on subsequent days when the complainant approached the opposite party on 3 different dates to pay the interest the opposite party denied and when on 5/7/2010 when the complainant went to the opposite party to redeem the jewel by settling the loan amount, but he was demanded Rs.57,258/ -.The complainant alleged that the opposite party claimed higher interest of 30% instead of 18% of interest as per law following which the complainant issued legal notice to opposite party on 10/07/2010 which was duly replied by opposite party on 21/7/2010 with his contentions. The complainant's being aggrieved by the demand for higher rate of interest at the time of redeeming the jewels and refusal to receive the principal and interest at 18% p.a. filed this complaint.

           5. The opposite party contends that the complainant obtained a gold loan of Rs.48,000/- pledging 40g gold chain on 04/11/2009 and by signing the terms and conditions there by agreeing that he understood the terms and conditions of the loan and the opposite party contended that the availed gold loan carried a rate of 24% for first 3 months, subsequently for 27% from the 4^th month to 6^th month, 30% from 6th month and a penal interest thereafter on failure to pay his interest. The complainant remained default till 9/4/2011 from pledged date followed by which the opposite party issued notice on 1/3/2010 and 5/5/2010 and a registered notice on 5/6/10.The opposite party received a legal notice on 10/7/2010 for which an reply was given by the opposite party.

          6.  Perused documents, the complainant obtained a gold loan Rs. 48,000/- by pledging 40gm gold chain on 4-11-2009 vide receipt no. F11523/5366780 which specified that the interests were to be duly paid on every 4th day of the month and the interest amount as Rs. 960/- which is 24%of the pawn amount, but the complainant failed to pay any interest as per loan agreement and the opposite party claims for a due of Rs. 57258/- on subsequent days is proved by Ex.A1. Facts being so the Ex.B1 proves that the complainant had signed thereby willing to abide by the terms and conditions of the loan and also signed in the declaration form   Ex.B2 thereby agreeing to redeem the jewels pledged within three months by paying interest. On account of the complainant's failure to make any payment towards interest the opposite party sent notices to complainant requesting him to repay the loan dues and redeem the jewel under Ex.B3 and proof of such sent to the complainant on 05.05.2010 is marked as Ex.B4. Though the complainant alleges in ExB2 and all his averments that the opposite party is entitled to claim only 18% interest as per law, no document has been filed by the complainant to establish the same. It is found that the complainant from the date of pledging the jewels has not paid any amount towards interest as agreed  by him at the time of pledging. The opposite party contended that the interest amount for the1st month was calculated in advance and deducted at the time of disbursement of loan amount which cannot be construed as unfair trade practice.  It is found that inspite of several notices sent by the opposite party the complainant has not chosen to pay any amount towards interest and he has not shown any interest to redeem the jewels within the stipulated time. The complainant failed to establish the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party with substantial proof.

          7.  Further as per the decision rendered in FA. No. 629/2008 Ganpathraj Surana vs Pandian dated 01/6/2011 by SCDRC Chennai, since the transactions between parties relates to pledging of jewel and the relationship is only a pawnee and pawner relationship, the complainant does not come under the definition of consumer and if the complainant is aggrieved over the exorbitant interest rate claimed by the opposite party and also advance deduction of one month interest the complainant has to seek his remedy before the competent and appropriate forum and not before this commission and the complaint cannot be treated as a consumer complaint as consumer protection Act. Hence, the complainant can seek their remedy before suitable forum. Hence the complaint is not maintainable in Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. Point No.1 and 2 is answered accordingly.

8. Point No.3:

          Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 and 2 since the complainant  is not a consumer and further having failed to prove the deficiency in service and  unfair trade practice by the Opposite party, the complainant is not entitled to seek for handing over of pawned jewels before this commission and hence not entitled to the relief and compensation as claimed in the complaint.  Point no.3 answered accordingly.

                   In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

          Dictated  by the Member-I to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 18^th  day of November 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	04.11.2010	Pown receipt.
Ex.A2	10.07.2010	Legal notice.
Ex.A3	21.07.2010	Reply notice.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1	04.11.2009	Pledge receipt.
Ex.B2	04.11.2009	Declaration.
Ex.B3	01.03.2010	Notice.
Ex.B4	05.05.2010	UCP notice.
Ex.B5	07.06.2010	Reply notice.

 

 

MEMBER – I                            MEMBER II                       PRESIDENT