Complaint filed on: 15.07.2016
Complaint Disposed on:07.07.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.80/2016
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JULY 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Saritha K.V. W/o Ravi,
Aged about 26 years,
R/o Hirekolale Road,
Uppalli, Chikmagalur.
(By Sri/Smt. G.R.Mallikarjun, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT/S:
The Manager,
Muthoot Finance Ltd.,
Chikmagalur Branch,
Chikmagalur City-577101.
(OP By Sri/Smt. Halekote A.Thejaswi, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP alleging deficiency in service in not returning the gold article pledged by complainant. Hence, prays for direction against Op to return the gold article which was pledged by receiving the loan amount along with compensation for deficiency in service in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant had availed loan of Rs.30,000/- from Op by pledging her 17 gms gold necklace on 20.10.2014 vide account no.001971. There afterwards the complainant paid Rs.1,364/- on 19.01.2015 towards interest, further on 09.10.2015 complainant also paid Rs.4,498/- towards interest of the loan. There afterwards the complainant approached the Op to realize the gold article which was pledged, for which the Op had told that the gold article was auctioned and they are not liable to return the gold article after accepting the loan amount. But the Ops have illegally auctioned the gold article of the complainant and they have not issued any notice to the complainant before initiated the public auction of the gold article of the complainant. The Op also not provided any opportunity to pay the entire amount with interest to the complainant, if the Op have issued a notice to the complainant, the complainant definitely would have paid the entire loan amount with accrued interest and received the pledged gold article. But the Ops have not provided any opportunity to the complainant to realize the gold article. Hence, Op rendered a deficiency in service in not returning the gold article after accepting the balance loan amount with accrued interest.
The complainant finally issued a legal notice on 18.05.2016 and called upon the Op to receive the loan amount and to return the gold article. Even after receipt of the legal notice also Op failed to return the gold article. Hence, complainant filed this complaint and prays for direction against Op to return the gold article by accepting the balance loan amount along with compensation for deficiency in service.
3. After service of notice Op appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that, the complainant had pledged the gold necklace weighing 17 gms on 20.10.2014 and had availed a financial assistance of Rs.30,000/- from this Op. It is also true that on 19.01.2015 complainant paid Rs.1,364/- and on 09.10.2015 complainant had paid Rs.4,498/- towards installments of the repayment of the said loan.
The complainant after obtaining the loan from this Op is not regular in paying the installments, the staff of this Op have requested the complainant to up-to-date the installments on several times and also requested to pay the due amount. Inspite of repeated requests and demand made by Op the complainant had failed to made repayment. Inspite of all these requests complainant had failed to repay the entire loan amount due to this Op. Finally this Op had issued a notice dated:18.03.2016 and called upon the complainant to repay the entire due amount and also cautioned the complainant regarding the auction of the pledged gold article of the complainant. The notice sent through RPAD returned with an endorsement “ªÀÄ£É §zÀ¯Á¬Ä¹zÁÝgÉ” and contact number furnished by complainant was not in existence. Further this Op have made a paper publication in Kannada Prabha newspaper dated:05.04.2016 and informed the public auction of the gold article of the complainant. Inspite of these all efforts the complainant failed to repay the amount, having no option this Op proceeded further and sold the gold article of the complainant in public auction for sum of Rs.42,500/- on 25.04.2016.
Op further contended that, as on the date of public auction the complainant was due to sum of Rs.33,884/- and the same was adjusted to the loan account of the complainant on 27.04.2016 and this Op is ready to credit the excess amount of Rs.8,616/- to the account of the complainant, if the details are furnished.
Op further contended that, the complainant at the time of availing the loan had accepted the terms and conditions of the loan and had signed the document on 20.10.2014, this Op acted as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement agreed between the complainant and this Op. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Op in recovering the loan amount by public auction of the gold article of the complainant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and Op also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.6.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP?
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Op, we noticed that there is no dispute that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.30,000/- from Op on 20.10.2014 by pledging her 17 gms gold necklace with Op. There is also no dispute that on 19.01.2015 she paid Rs.1,364/- and also Rs.4,498/- on 19.10.2015. In this regard complainant had produced loan intimation letter marked as Ex.P.1, Application to the loan marked as Ex.P.2, two receipts issued by Op towards payment of Rs.1,364/- and Rs.4,498/- marked as Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. Further she produced copy of the legal notice marked as Ex.P.5 issued to Op dated:18.05.2016 and postal acknowledgement due marked as Ex.P.6. We observed that the complainant had issued a legal notice after lapse of 6 months from the last payment as per Ex.P.4. We noticed after the payment of Rs.4,498/- complainant not made any attempts to pay the interest towards loan amount even she had not made any attempts to repay the loan amount to the Op and at the same time we noticed that, Op had produced demand notice issued to the complainant marked as Ex.R.4, the said registered post was not delivered to the complainant for want of change of address, here we noticed that the complainant had not intimated the Op at the time of change of the residence. It is the duty of the complainant to inform about the change of address to the Op, but she has not done so. Ex.R.4 clearly indicates that the Op had demanded a balance amount of Rs.30,000/- with accrued interest and also intimated the complainant with respect to the public auction held if she failed to repay the loan amount. The said demand notice is sufficient to show that the Op have not rendered any deficiency in service before putting the gold article of the complainant in the public auction.
We are of the opinion that the complainant herself is negligent in follow up the loan obtained from Op and she is not regular in repaying installments towards loan. We observed that as per Ex.R.6 Ops also published in the Kannada Prabha Newspaper with respect to the public auction of the gold article of the complainant. Hence, we found that the Op had complied the terms and conditions before auctioning the gold article of the complainant. The complainant had not made any attempts to stop the public auction by paying the loan amount, she only issued a notice after lapse of one month from the date of public auction. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed in the complaint.
Further we noticed that Op had sworn affidavit that they have sold gold article of the complainant for an amount of Rs.42,500/-, whereas the outstanding loan is Rs.33,884/- and they have undertaken to repay the balance amount of Rs.8,616/- to the complainant, if complainant provide bank account to the Op. Under these circumstances complainant is at liberty to receive the said amount only from Op. Further the complainant failed to establish a deficiency in service on the part of Op. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 7th day of July 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant/S:
Ex.P.1 - Loan sanction letter.
Ex.P.2 - Application for gold loan.
Ex.P.3 & 4 - Two receipts issued by Op.
Ex.P.5 - Office copy of the legal notice.
Ex.P.6 - Postal Ack.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:
Ex.R.1 - Gold loan ledger extract.
Ex.R.2 - Loan sanction letter.
Ex.R.3 - Loan application.
Ex.R.4 - Under served RP cover.
Ex.R.4(a) - Original demand notice.
Ex.R.5 - Ledger extract.
Ex.R.6 - Certified copy of paper publication.
Dated:07.07.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
