By Smt. G. Vasanthakumari, President
Complainant’s case is that, the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2[1] [d] of the Consumer Protection Act, that the service rendered by the opp.party is service under Sec 2[1][o] of the Consumer Protection Act, that the opp.party is conducting banking service in the name and style Muthoot and on 16..8..2005 complainant availed a loan of Rs.15,400/- by pledging 3.6 sovereigns of gold on interest assured by the opp.party at the rate of 90 paise for Rs.100/- per month, that on 26..12..2006 the complainant approached the opp.party to close the loan account to get released the gold , that the opp.party asked the complainant to remit Rs.21,140/- to close the account against the actual amount of Rs.19,000/-, that though the complainant requested to issue receipt/bill for his remittance the opp.party was not ready to issue a bill or receipt for the same and the complainant did not pay the amount, that the act of the opp.party is illegal, that the interest calculated by the opp.party is above 37% per annum , that it is gigantic amount rather than what he promised, that the act of the opp.party is illegal as envisaged under Sec. 2 [1] [o] of the Consumer Protection Act, and that amounts to deficiency in service which is causing serious injuries to the complainant and hence this complaint for directing the opp.party to issue bill to the complainant on remittance of the amount. It is further alleged that the complainant due to the illegal act of the opp.party suffered mental agony and pain and the injury caused to the complainant cannot be compensated in terms of money and claimed for compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and prayed for the cost of the proceedings also.
Opp.party filed version contending that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of the Act and hence it is liable to be dismissed inlimini, that the complainant pledged 32.50 grams of old gold with the opp.party on 16..8..2005 agreeing that the pledged gold ornaments will be taken back within 6 months with agreed rate of interest, ie ,18%, that if the complainant did not take back the pledged gold ornaments within 12 months it will be disposed even without notice, that the opp.party never agreed for the interest at the rate of 90 paise for Rs.100/- per month as alleged in the complaint, that the complainant never came to the opp.party after pledging the gold ornaments on 16..8....2005 and thereby he had violated the terms and conditions of the agreement , that the opp.party never exploited the complainant or anybody, that the opp.party never rendered any service for payments or the complainant paid any money for service, that the opp.party had not violated any terms and conditions of the agreement and as such the complaint is only to be dismissed with cost of the opp.party.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service?
3. Reliefs and costs.
For the complainant PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exts.P1 and P2.
For the opp.party DW.1 was examined and marked Ext. D1.
Once the complaint was dismissed on 31..10..2008 finding that the complaint is not maintainable. The matter was taken before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal No.355/2008. There both sides have admitted that it is settled law that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies under the Consumer Protection Act has got jurisdiction in the above matter and subsequently the order of the Forum is setaside and the matter is remitted back to the Forum by judgement dated 15..9..2009 to adjudicate the matter on merits. So point No.1 need not be considered again in view of the above findings.
POINT NO.2
Admittedly the complainant pledged old gold ornaments with the opp.party on 16..8..2005 and availed a loan of Rs.15,400/-. The dispute is with respect to the interest charged on pledged ornaments. Complainant’s case is that on 26..12..2006 he approached the opp.party to close the loan transaction and to get released the gold ornaments, but the opp.party asked the complainant to remit Rs.21,140/- to close the account against the actual amount of Rs.19,000/- and though the complainant requested to issue receipt/bill for his remittance the opp.party was not ready to issue a bill or receipt for the same and hence the complainant did not pay the amount.. But according to the opp.party as per the agreement the complainant has to remit the principal amount with 18% interest within 6 months, if not the interest has to be paid and re-pledged the ornaments and if the complainant could not redeem within one year the opp.party is having all the right to sell it and adjust towards the loan account and if any balance is to be paid to the opp.party, the opp.party can sue for recovery of balance amount. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the opp.party is entitled to receive only 6% interest from the complainant. The opp.party with the intention to exploit the complainant demanded huge amount that too without issuing a bill for payment. Since the dispute is with respect to the interest, let us, examine Ext. D1 , alleged agreement produced by the opp.party. It shows that on 16..8..2005 the complainant availed a loan of Rs.15,400/- by pledging 32.50grams of gold ornaments with the opp.party. In that it is stated that “ salf\fA eM\ goe18 CfalrA dkmkr\r ehjCSulmkdomj mj akf\fkM\ShS]l LlG/GS]l LliCUe\semkr\SelX frr\ksdlxxlsar\r\” On the reverse side of Ext. D1 it is stated that dmA ilb\bkr\r cADU LliCUe\semkr\SelX fjgjsd fSgn\mfkA[LliCUe\se}jgkr\rjh\shb\djhkA6 %lA alcf\fjH akfhkA ehjCukALmv\v\ Tmelm\ fJGf\f\ Kgke\emjdX fjgjsd ilb\Sbn\mfldkr\rk; 12 alcf\fjrdA Tmelm\ fJGf\fk enuKgke\emjdX fjgjsd tmk\]lf\fed\,A LfjrkSC,A ulsflgyjuje\ekA sdlmk]lsf fr\sr Kgke\emjdX Shhf\fjShl Lh\hlfSul ijM\ akfhkA ehjCukA svhikA KXe\sesmukxx cADU icoH svu\ukr\rfjr\ Bb\bX]\ LPjdlgakxxfldkr\rk; \ijM\dj}kr\r cADU TOmlS]n\m cADUujH dkyilujgkr\rlH Llufkddomj sgl]A fSgn\mfkA domkfhlujgkrrlH Lluf\ fjgjsd sdlmk]kr\rfkaldkr\rk; Lb\bsr Shhf\fjH siv\vkKn\mldkr\r r,\mf\fjrk enuAiu\]kgr\r LlX Kf\fgilpjulujgj]kA enuA fr\rjgj]kr\r Kgke\emjdX dr\erjuksm LliCUf\fjrluj enalSul TOmlSul rHdj enA dmA ilb\bkr\rfjrk\ dr\erj]k LPjdlgA Kn\mlujgj]kr\rfln\; enuA iu\]kr\r LlX]\ Kmac\Ffujh\hlf\f Kgke\emjdX enuA iu\]likr\rfh\hl
Admittedly the complainant has not approached the opp.party to get released the gold ornaments by paying the loan amount with interest. It is also true that the complainant has not approached the opp.party to get released the gold ornaments within 12 months. It is also true that the opp.party has not auctioned the same for the loan amount and interest. The pledged gold ornaments are even now with the opp.party. The Manager of the opp.party was examined before the Forum as DW.1. The complainant was examined as PW1. He has categorically stated before the Forum that Ext.P1 hkA Ext. D1hkA SgDe\semkf\fjujgj]kr\r condition BlR elhjv\vj}jh\h. The conditions in Ext.P1 and Ext.D1 are one and the same. But the case of the complainant is that on 26..12..2006 he approached the opp.party to close the loan transaction and to get the gold ornaments released, but the opp.party asked the complainant to remit Rs.21,140/- instead of Rs.19,000/-. Then he demanded receipt/bill but the opp.party was not ready to issue the receipt/bill and so he returned . According to the complainant he sought for the bill since the interest claimed is exorbitant than agreed in Ext. D1. Ext. P2 is a final notice issued by opp.party to the complainant on 9.7.2007 which was received by him on 10..7..2007. In that, auction date is mentioned as 7.7.2007 and the place of auction is stated as Polayathodu and it is mentioned therein “that for auction place, date and time please contact Branch Manager.”
As we have already mentioned admittedly the complainant pledged gold ornaments with the opp.party on 16..8..2005 and availed a loan of Rs.15,400/- and has not approached the opp.party to redeem the pledged ornaments within 6 months as per first condition in Ext. P1 and Ext.D1 The opp.party has not auctioned the same within one year as per condition No. 2 in Ext.P1 and D1. Then both of them have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement . It is in evidence that the complainant is a usual customer of the opp.party. Even though it is disputed by the opp.party the definite case of the complainant is that on 26...12..2006 he approached the opp.party to get the gold ornaments released. If that be so, Ext. P2 final notice is after his visit on 26..12..2006. It is pertinent to note that the dispute is with respect to the interest alone. In Ext. P2 notice there is no whisper about the interest or about the total amount including loan amount and interest. So also in Ext.P1 and Ext. D1 there is no whisper about the default interest apart from 18%. As we have already mentioned a careful scrutiny of Ext. P2 would show that even though the date fixed for auction is stated as 7.7.2007 the notice seen registered on 9..7…2007 which can be seen from the postal receipt pasted with the notice. So also postal seal dated 10..7..2007 is there. It shows that the notice was received by the complainant only on 10..7..2007. It brings out that the trade practice of the opp.party is not fair. Since the opp.party has gone to the extent of issuing such a final notice, even though there are certain discrepancies in the deposition of PWs.1 and 2, the case of the complainant cannot be thrown out. In the absence of default clause regarding the interest in Ext.P1 or Ext. D1 claiming of excess interest clearly points out the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opp.party. Ext. D2 also highlights why the opp.party was reluctant in issuing receipt. Before the Forum DW.1 deposed that Ext. D1 YedlgAakxx fkdukA ehjCukA agreed rate Lmv\vlH enuA fjgjsd rHdj gcJf\ rHdlA. In view of our above discussion we have no hesitation to safely conclude that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Point found accordingly.
POINT NO.3
In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the opp.party to issue receipt/ bill to the complainant on payment of loan amount and interest at the rate of 18% as agreed in Ext.D1. Since the complainant has not approached the opp.party within the time mentioned in Ext.D1 to redeem the pledged gold ornaments and since the claim for compensation not proved no order for compensation. On the other hand, on demand since the opp.party has not issued the bill after receiving the amount and interest, the complainant is entitled to get the cost of the proceedings Rs.1,000/- The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order..
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2012.
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. Niyas Ahammed
PW.2. – Clament
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Receipt
P2. – Notice dt. 7.7.2008
List of witnesses for the opp.party
DW.1. – Salamma
List of documents for the opp.party
D1. – Receipt
