BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE: 29th June 2016
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 76/2016
Complainant/s:
Muhammad Rafiq S/o.Gaibusab Bisti,
Occ: Business, R/o.Bdiger Plot, Madihal Road, Dharwad 580001.
(By Sri.M.M.Naikwadi, Adv.)
v/s
Respondent/s:
The Manager, Muthoot Finance, Branch: Opposite Saraswathi Hotel, Dalal Market, Dharwad-01
(By Sri.Chamaraj Bangi, Adv.)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to respondents to return the golden ornaments & to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
The case of the complainant is that, complainant has availed gold loan of Rs.98000/- from respondent by pledging golden ornaments in all weighing 19 gms., of worth more than Rs.1.80 lakhs, on 25.10.2014 under Gold loan # F-2601. Due to slack of business and drought situation complainant could not repay the loan intime. In the month of October last week & November first week complainant went to north India to attend the urs & after return complainant approached respondent on 19.12.2015 & told him, he is ready to repay entire loan amount along with interest. During that time to the shock of the complainant the respondent informed that the golden ornaments were sold in auction. Complainant strongly protest for auction sale. At the time of auction respondent had violated principles of natural justice by not giving opportunity to show cause. Due to disposal of the golden ornaments in auction by the respondent complainant put to hardship. On 23.12.2015 complainant got issued legal notice to respondent showing his readiness to repay all the amount and to return the golden ornaments. Respondent sent reply stating, already golden ornaments were sold out. The respondent did not issued prior notice of auction dt.17.10.2015. So also respondent did not furnished details of golden ornaments sold in auction. In the reply notice respondent falsely stated, still Rs.21315/- is balance. The action of the respondent in disposing the golden ornaments amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.
2. In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondents appeared & filed written version stating that, the very complaint is not maintainable and is frivolous one & hence the same is not maintainable either in law or on facts and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Among such other admissions and denials the respondent raised question with regard to the maintainability of consumer complaint, relationship of consumer and service provider in between complainant and respondent and prays for dismissal of the complaint on those grounds also. Further the respondent admits availment of the loan by pledging the golden ornaments, while denied non issuing notice of demand & notice of auction. Further the respondent admits issuance of the notice by the complainant and suitable reply for the same. Apart from denying & disputing the complaint averments the respondent revealed in detail terms and conditions of the gold pledge loan, undertaking given by complainant while availing loan & non payment of the same & further contended justifying the disposal of the pledged golden ornaments in action towards realization of the loan due amount and charging of interest in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan application. Apart from denial of the complaint averments asserted the respondent has not committed any deficiency in service & prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost of the proceedings and compensation.
3. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents. The respondent apart from argument relied on citations and filed notes of argument. Heard. Perused the records.
The respondent relied on following citations:
- 1997 (3) CPJ 3 NC –Standard Charterd Bank vs. P.N.Tantia
- 2003 (1) CPJ 346 NC-Bhimjibai Parasottambai vs. Sarvoday Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
- 2005 (2) CPJ 262 NC-Indian Overseas Bank vs. P.Palangaswamy
- 2010 AIR SC 3534- Managing Director, Maharastra State Finance & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Shankarsa Mamarade
Finding on points is as under.
1. Negative
2. Negative
3. As per order
R E A S O N S
P O I N T S 1 & 2
4. On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, the complainant had availed loan from the respondent by pledging the golden ornaments as admitted by the complainant.
5. Now the question to be determined is, whether the respondent auctioned the pledged ornaments by violating terms and conditions of the loan agreement which amounts to deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.
6. Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition.
7. By the pleadings and evidence led by the complainant it is evident that the complainant after availing loan not repaid any amount and violated terms and conditions of the loan repayment undertakings. Though the complainant had taken the contention that the respondent by violating the principles of natural justice even not giving opportunity to show cause by the complainant disposed the pledged golden ornaments towards realization of the due amount the respondent relied on documents Ex.R1 & R3 which are application cum declaration and application for gold loan respectively dt.25.10.2014. On perusal of the rear side of Ex.R3 the respondent has clearly mentioned terms and conditions of the gold loan scheme & which has been accepted & acknowledged by the complainant. In rebuttal to the contention of the complainant that the respondent without any intimation or notice brought the pledged golden ornaments in auction, the respondent denied & dispute the same both in the written version as well as in the evidence. In corroboration to the contention taken the respondent relied on notices Ex.R4 to 7, Dt.26.03.2015, 27.04.2015, 25.09.2015, 07.10.2015 respectively with postal receipts for having sent those notices. Ex.R7 auction notice is the final notice issued by respondent to the complainant with postal RPAD receipt Ex.R8 clearly reveals prior to auction the respondent has sent notice of demand for payment of the loan due amount and redeem the pledged articles. Added to it, further corroboration the respondent relied on Ex.R10 vide paper publication mentioning the loan due account, name of the defaulted loanees, date of auction, place of auction. In rebuttal to these contention and documents complainant did not produced or adduced any evidence. Added to it, the complainant did not produced any documents to show that despite payment the respondent auctioned pledged golden ornaments and committed deficiency in service as alleged & contended by complainant. If the complainant would have produced any evidence to show that despite payment the respondent had disposed the pledged golden ornaments in the auction the allegations of the complainant could have been accepted but are made with an ulterior motive to institute false complaint against the respondent by misutilizing the benvolency of CP Act. Under those circumstances complainant has utterly failed to establish his case of deficiency in service committed by the respondent. In support of justification in disposal of the pledged golden ornaments in public auction the respondent relied on Ex.R11 extract of statement of gold loan #F2601 stood in the name of the complainant. The said statement reveals the complainant is still in due of the amount. Hence, complainant is not entitled for any reliefs. Interalia respondent has justified in auctioning & dispose the pledged golden ornaments deposited towards the security of the loan and realizing the loan due amount. As per the evidence led by the respondent, complainant is in still due of the amount even after realization of golden ornaments towards the loan due amount. Hence, respondent is at liberty to recover the same by establishing the same before the proper Forum/court. Non protesting the notices issued by the respondent intimating the loan due amount and notice of auction justify the conduct of the respondent which requires no interference by this Forum.
8. In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in negative.
9. Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following
O R D E R
Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 29th day of June 2016)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
MSR
