IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

                    Saturday the 25^th  day of September, 2021

                               Filed on 03.09.2018

Present

1.  Sri.S.Santhosh kumar.Bsc.LLB(President)

2.  Smt. Sholly.P.R ,LLB (Member)

                                                          In

                                         CC/No.232/2018

                                                     Between

Complainant:-                                                                  Opposite parties:-

    Sri.Anok Lal                                               1.      The Manager

S/o Dharma Rajan                                                KSFE, Muhamma Branch 

Amrutha Vihar                                                      Muhamma P.O,

 Muhamma..P.O                                                     Alappuzha-688525

Alappuzha-688525                                                (Adv. Sri. Rajesh.P)

(Party in person)                                        2.          The Managing Director

                                                                              KSFE, Bhadratha

                                                                             PB No.510, Museum Road,

                                                                                                 Thrissur

                                                                             (Adv. Sri.Rajesh.P)                                                                                    3.         Special Deputy Tahsildar

                                                                             R.R Division, ACJ Mansion

                                                                                   Building

                                                                             Near Kannan Vareky Bridge,

                                                                             Seaview Ward, Alappuzha

                                                                                                    (Party in person)

                                                     O R D E R

SMT. SHOLLY.P.R (MEMBER)

Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-

The complainant was running a private finance company during the years 2012-2015 for his livelihood and also he was dealing with KSFE, Muhamma branch regarding gold loan.  The complainant has faced a huge loss in the transaction with KSFE, Muhamma branch who attained unlawful gain from this transaction.  Due to the loss the complainant had to leave his place for a long time.  During the last of said period the 1^st opposite party had auctioned the pledged gold ornaments before the period of 3 months and  thereafter they sent notice to the complainant intimating the amount got from those auction were below the loan amount  + interest.

2.      The branch manager contacted the complainant through telephone and told him to submit all the pledged receipts and help the opposite parties to settle the transaction.  At the time the opposite parties promised that he will check and contact the complainant regarding the payment of the amount.  But till date, there is no information from the opposite parties side.  The next time when the complainant went to the branch for taking pledged gold, the opposite parties said that KSFE knows how to get the money and there is no need for the complainant to come back again to take the gold.  Thus the complainant was not able to give back the customers’ gold which was pledged with 1^st opposite party. To give back the  gold, the complainant has borrowed huge amount from his friends  and obtained money by selling as well as  mortgaging the property and after that he was not able to pay back the money, resulting which he was forced to leave the place.  In between,  KSFE has started with attachment proceedings. Alleging deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties the complainant filed this complaint.

3. Version of  1^st opposite party is as follows:-

          The complaint is unsustainable either in law or on facts.  This complaint is barred by limitation.  The complainant cannot be come under the definition of consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, since he has been running a gold loan institution and has made number of transactions with KSFE, Muhamma branch from 2005 for and on behalf of that institution

4.      There the complainant had total 801 gold transactions with 1^st opposite party , 2005 onwards and in this 127 transactions made from 2012 to 2014 the gold ornaments were auctioned and the amounts were deducted from those arrears since it became defaulted.  Revenue Recovery proceedings was started in 34 transactions where the amount was deficient to close them. 

5.      1^st opposite party had informed all the defaulted transactions to the complainant directly and through notices. It was noticed that the customers of the complainant had committed defaults in their transactions with the complainant thereby he faced some financial stringency and it caused default to the 1^st opposite party. Thereafter the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant regarding the sale of gold ornaments to obtain the amount to the transaction.

6.      During 2013 the value of gold was diminished and the complainant again made defaults in his transaction.  It was directed from the Head office of 1^st opposite party to sell the gold in the defaulted transactions by cumulated arrears.   In this situation the gold pledged in the transaction of the complainant was sold out. The allegations of sale of gold before attained 3 months and the 1^st opposite party obtained all the receipts of gold loan from the complaint are false, hence denied.  The 1^st opposite party acted only upon law.  The complainant filed this complaint only to stop the R.R.proceedings initiated against him and thereby earns unlawful enrichment.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party.  1^st opposite party as a government sector undertaking, they acted upon law to obtain the amount which is liable to be get as public money.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost of this opposite party.

7.      2^nd opposite party filed version adopted the same contentions of the 1^st opposite party.

8.      Version filed by the 3^rd opposite party is as follows:-

          The complainant had taken several gold loans from the 1^st opposite party on default of repayment of certain loans the 1^st opposite party sent requisition to District collector for initiating RR proceedings against 1^st opposite party and thereby the District Collector issued RR certificate for 30 numbers and those proceedings were going on after issuing Sec. 7 Notice under RR.Act to the complainant.

9.      Details of RR. Accounts against  the complainant are given below:-

10.    On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the complaint?

3. Reliefs and cost?

11.    Evidence in this case consists oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1, A2 and A3 series on the side of complainant and oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 on the side of opposite parties.  Heard both sides.

12. Point No. 1 and 2:-

          PW1 is the complainant in this case.  He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext.A1, A2 and A3 series.

          RW1 is the 1^st opposite party in this case she filed an affidavit in tune with the version and got marked Ext.B1 and B2.

12.    The case advanced by PW1, the complainant is that he was running a private finance institution during the years 2012-2015 for his livelihood and also he was dealing with 1^st opposite party by pledging gold.  Mean while due to financial difficulties PW1 has faced huge financial loss by which 1^st opposite party has got unlawful financial gain from PW1 and it leads PW1 compelled to leave his place for a long time.  During last of the above said period the 1^st opposite party had auctioned the pledged gold before attained the period of 3 months end thereafter intimated to PW1 that the amount got from those auctions were below the loan amount along with interest in each transaction. 

13.    According to PW1 the 1^st opposite party also contacted him to submit all the receipts of the gold loan for settlement of all the transaction and made believe that they will check all the transactions of the complainant and also contact him to inform regarding the balance payment.  But no intimation was given by the 1^st opposite party regarding the payment.  Besides that they humiliated the complainant in the midst of general public by saying they knows how to get the money and there is no need for the complainant to come back again to take the gold.  Thus PW1 could not give back the gold of his customers which was pledged to 1^st opposite party.  Hence he had to borrow huge amount from others and sold and mortgaged his properties to collect money for settling his customers and after that he was not able to pay back the money resulting which he was forced to leave the place.  Meanwhile 1^st opposite party had started RR proceedings against PW1.  According to PW1 the RR proceedings were taken by 1^st opposite party without any intimation given to him.  Hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service.  Per contra the case advanced by opposite parties is that they issued statutory notice regarding Revenue Recovery proceedings to PW1.  1^st opposite party also informed the same directly to the complainant.  The same was categorically deposed by RW1 during cross examination.  In this circumstance it is to be noted the relevancy of cross examination of PW1, since there are certain admissions which proves the case advanced by the opposite parties.  PW1 admitted that it was told by 1^st opposite party that the sale should be conducted during 2014 itself.  Then he also admitted that he made written request seeking more time.  More over the following deposition like

“AXn\p tijw Hcpan¨p teew sN¿m\pff HmÀUÀ h¶n«ps­¶v amt\PÀ ]dªp.  C\n ]Wbw FSp¡m³ htc­ F¶pw ]dªncp¶p. 2014 Xs¶bmWv Sn Imcy§Ä ]dªXv. BgvNbn Hcp Znhksa¦nepw OP bn t]mIp¶bmfmWv.  AXn\ptijw OP bn t]mbn«nÃ.  OP  bv¡v \jvSw hcnà F¶mWv amt\PÀ Ft¶mSv ]dªXv.”

           reveals that the PW1 has every knowledge subject to the sale of gold during 2014 itself. It is also pertinent to note that when put a question during cross examination that   “FÃm CS]mSpIfpw Imemh[n ]qÀ¯nbm¡n hogvNhcp¯nbXn\memWv teew sNbvXsX¶v ]dbp¶p. (Q)   icnbmWv.(A). Here PW1 admitted defaults on his part.

14.    PW1 also admitted the sale of 127 items in his transactions with 1^st opposite party and among those RR proceedings initiated in 34 cases due to insufficient amount.  He further admitted that this case was filed after initiating the RR proceeding by the opposite parties.  On perusal of Ext.A2 it reveals that 1^st opposite party had given intimation on 10/3/2015. Ext.A1 demand notice issued on 9/7/2018. 

15.    Ext.B1 is the details of Auction in 127 transactions PW1 with 1^st opposite party as stated earlier.  Ext.B2 is the statement of RR accounts subject to 34 transactions. Both these documents were acknowledged byPW1 in Ext.A3 series.  In this discussion it is to be noted that along with the complaint PW1 filed notice (30 Nos) issued by opposite parties under Sec.7 of Revenue Recovery Act. As stated earlier the sale proceedings were commenced in the year 2014 and the same was admitted by PW1 also.  After conducting sale the loss caused in the said transactions was intimated to PW1 on 10/3/2015.  On that occasion he had no grievance.  This complaint filed only after receiving the RR notice issued by opposite parties. In the said circumstances on perusal of entire evidence and in the light of the above discussion it seems that this complaint was filed only to overcome the RR proceedings on an experimental basis.  Hence we found no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties.  These points are answered accordingly.

16.    Point No.3:-

          In the result the complaint stands dismissed. Both parties shall bear their respective cost.  

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 25^th      day of September, 2021.

         Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)

                                               Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                    -        Anoklal (complainant)   

Ext.A1                -        Demand Notice  U/s.34.RR Act. dtd. 9/7/2018                

Ext.A2                -        Demand Notice issued by KSFE

Ext.A3                -        Details of Transaction between Complainant & Ops &

                                      R.R. Accounts

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

RW1                   -        Asha.M.S (witness)

Ext.B1                 -        Auction transaction

Ext.B2                 -        Statement of RR accounts

// True Copy //

To     

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-