Complaint filed on: 05.04.2016
Complaint Disposed on:02.03.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.48/2016
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF MARCH 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:
Sri.Lohith H.M,
S/o.Gurumurthy @ Murthy,
Aged about 31 years,
R/o No.16, Hosahalli Village,
Aldur Hobli, Chikmagalur Taluk.
(By Sri/Smt. H.M Sudhakar, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
The Manager,
Muthoot Finance Ltd.,
No.6952/5058, 1st Floor,
Chamundi Fancy Store
Building, M.G Road,
Chikmagalur City.
(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 a deficiency in not returning the gold ornaments by receiving loan amount. Hence, prays for direction against Op to return the gold ornaments pledged by complainant by receiving loan amount along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant on 07.07.2014 had pledged gold stud-two in numbers (7.500 gms) and obtained the loan amount of Rs.11,000/- from Op, after pledged the said gold ornaments the Op had taken a signature of the complainant on various blank printed forms and also blank papers. The complainant at the time of taking gold loan is agreed to repay the said loan amount along with interest. Accordingly Rs.1,999/- interest paid on 11.07.2015, Op also issued receipt to that effect, further after payment of the interest the complainant approached Op on 28.02.2016 along with principal loan amount in order to clear the loan and requested the Op to hand over the pledged gold ornaments, when complainant approached for clearance, Op had told that gold ornaments belonging to complainant were sold in the public auction and the proceeds of the sale was adjusted to the loan account of the complainant, but the Op illegally sold the gold ornaments of the complainant. The Op had not issued any intimation/notice to this complainant before auctioning the pledged gold ornaments of the complainant, even Op had not obtained any consent from this complainant before making public auction, the complainant always ready for clear the entire loan amount up-to-date with interest to the Op company, hence issued legal notice dated 02.03.2016 and called upon the Op to return the gold ornaments of the complainant by receiving loan amount with interest, notice served on the Op but no steps taken by Op to receive the loan amount and also to hand over the gold ornaments. Hence, Op rendered unfair trade practice/deficiency in service in not returning the gold ornaments. Hence, prays for direction against the Op to return the gold ornaments of the complainant by accepting the principal amount with interest of the loan along with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op appeared through his counsel and filed version ad contended that the complainant has pledged two gold studs on 07.07.2014 and availed financial assistance of Rs.11,000/- from this Op, but he is not regular in paying the installment towards the loan, the staff of the Op company on several times have requested over the telephone to update the installments and to pay the due amount, inspite of these requests the complainant failed to make the repayment towards the loan, on 11.12.2015 this Op issued the demand notice to complainant and demanded for payment of Rs.13,139/- and also intimated that if complainant fails to repay the loan amount, the pledged gold ornaments will be auctioned on 13.01.2016, the said notice was issued to complainant through RPAD and same was served on the complainant. After receipt of the demand notice the complainant neither replied the notice nor repaid the loan amount, further this Op also made paper publication in Vijaya Karnataka newspaper, informing the public auction of the gold articles along with complainants gold ornaments. Inspite of all these procedures the complainant failed to repay the loan amount with interest, having no option this Op had proceeded further and sold the gold articles of the complainant in the public auction, the complainant at the time of availing the loan had accepted the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and signed the document on 07.07.2014, this Op acted as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, hence, there is no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of this Op, they are not liable to return the gold ornaments to the complainant and also not liable to pay compensation for deficiency in service as prayed in the complaint. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.5. Op also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 and R.2.
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. There is no dispute that on 07.07.2014 complainant had availed the loan of Rs.11,000/- from Op by pledged his gold studs weighing 7.500 grams (New weight 5.200 grams) there is also no dispute that the said gold ornaments were sold in public auction by Op on 13.01.2016, the only dispute raised by complainant is that he had paid the interest of Rs.1,999/- on 11.07.2015 as per the terms and conditions of the loan, after the payment of the interest complainant approached the Op on 28.02.2016 for clearing the loan and to receive pledged gold ornaments, by that time Op was sold the gold ornaments of the complainant illegally without prior notice to the complainant. Hence, alleges deficiency in service and prays for direction against Op to deliver the pledged gold ornaments to complainant by receiving the loan amount with up-to-date interest.
On contrary Op had taken contention that complainant was agreed to repay the loan amount within one year, but he was not regular in paying the installments towards the loan, as on 11.12.2015 Complainant is in due of Rs.13,139/- for which they have issued demand notice for payment of the said loan amount and also instructed the complainant that if he failed to repay the loan amount the gold ornaments are going to be sold in public auction on 13.01.2016, but the complainant not repaid the loan amount, hence, they have proceeded to sell the gold ornaments in public auction, accordingly, they sold the gold ornaments of the complainant and the proceeds of the sale was adjusted to the loan account and submits no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on their part and submits for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has produced loan approval letter by Op marked as Ex.P.1, receipt towards payment of interest dated 11.07.2015 marked as Ex.P.2, demand notice issued by Op marked as Ex.P.3 and copy of the list of the numbers of the gold articles which are going to be public auction, which published in Vijaya Karnataka Newspaper marked as Ex.P.4, office copy of the legal notice marked as Ex.P.5. On observation of the said documents we noticed that the complainant has received a demand notice issued by Op, wherein Op demanded for payment of Rs.13,139/- including interest of Rs.2,175/-, the said demand notice was issued on 11.12.2015, the said notice was served on the complainant, same is marked as Ex.P.3, after that demand notice we noticed that complainant not approached Op for settlement of the loan account, instead of that had issued a legal notice dated 02.03.2016 and demanded for acceptance of the loan amount and to return the gold ornaments, but before sending the legal notice the said gold ornaments were sold in public auction on 13.01.2016 itself, the said paper publication was produced by complainant himself, on the said document it clearly goes to show that the complainant has a knowledge about the public auction held by Op, even after the issuance of the demand notice complainant had not made any efforts to approach the Op for settlement of the loan amount, at least he would have paid up-to-date interest towards loan, but he had not done so. Hence, it is clear negligence on the part of complainant in not updating the gold loan, the complainant only produced receipt dated 11.07.2015 marked as Ex.P.2, where he had paid an interest of Rs.1,999/-, in that said document we noticed that the interest was collected by Op up to 10.03.2015, there afterwards the complainant had made no efforts to updating the gold loan, mere payment of interest will be suffice for the claim of the complainant, if at all complainant was intended to clear loan would have been done before the public auction, the complainant knowing fully that the gold ornaments are going to sold in public auction, he has keep quite without updating, hence, we found there is no any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of Op in selling the gold ornaments of the complainant for recovery of the loan. Complainant failed to establish any allegation made in the complaint. Hence, 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 2nd day of March 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 - Loan sanction letter.
Ex.P.2 - Receipt towards payment of interest dt:11.07.2015.
Ex.P.3 - Due Notice issued by Op.
Ex.P.4 - List regarding the items auctioned by Op.
Ex.P.5 - Office copy of the legal notice.
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
Ex.R.1 - Copy of loan account statement.
Ex.R.2 - Xerox copy of the notice issued to complainant dt:11.12.15.
Dated:02.03.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
