Karnataka

Kolar

CC/48/2017

Sri.Prasanna Kumar.N - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Manappuram Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Suman K & Somashekhar

28 Apr 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 29/06/2017

Date of Order: 28/04/2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 28^th DAY OF APRIL 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 48 OF 2017

Sri. Prasannakumar.N,

S/o. Narayanappa,

Aged About 32 Year,

R/at: Kalahasthipura Village

& Kembodi Post, Kolar Taluk.                              ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. Suman.K, Somashekhar.R, Advocates)

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

Manappuram Finance Limited,

21^st/1^st 2^nd Floor,

Jalith Tower, Oppo: Gokul Das Exports,

Mission Road, Bangalore.

(Rep. by Sri. N. Srinivasa Gowda, Advocate)

 

2) The Manager,

Manappuram Finance Limited,

Banking & Other Financial Services,

Brahmin Street, Kolar.

(Rep. by Sri. N. Srinivasa Gowda, Advocate)  …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER,

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short it is referred as “the Act”) against the opposite parties for issuance of directions to Ops to return the gold jewels of 2 mattis, 4 SF Bend Drops and Stud, in total 06 items weighing of 14.5 grams by receiving the loan amount of Rs.23,300/- from the complainant and also sought for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and any other relief as this Forum deems to be fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, he being a private employee on 01.10.2016 had pledged gold jewels such as 02 mattis, 04 SF Bend Drops & Stud, in total 06 items weighting 14.5 grams for loan amount of Rs.23,300/- with OP No.2 with an interest at the rate of 25.53% per annum.  The total jewels valued more than Rs.45,000/- and the complainant had paid interest regularly without fail every month and even on 15.02.2017 he had paid total interest of Rs.2,473/- by which no balance of interest for the said gold loan.

 

(b)    It is further contended that, on several request of complainant to OP No.2 for returning of gold jewels by receiving the loan amount the OP No.2 instead of returning the jewels had been told that, already the said jewels had sent to head office for auction.  In this regard he got issued a legal notice through his learned counsel on 28.04.2017 and got reply by Ops by denying the claim of complainant.  So contending, the complainant has come up with this complaint seeking above set-out reliefs.

 

 

03.   In response to the notice issued by this Forum, Ops have appeared before this Forum and submitted written version by denying the claim of complainant in toto:-

(a)    The main contention of the Ops is that, it admits issuance of gold loan to the complainant on 01.10.2016 for Rs.23,300/- by pledging gold jewels of gross weight of 14.5 grams (11.074 grams net weight) with the tenure of loan was 90 days.  And the rate of interest mentioned at the time of pledging the complainant had selected SX scheme having interest rate of 24% for 01-60 days, 26T for 61-90 days and 29% for 90 and above days and which was agreed by the complainant.  At the time of availing the loan the Ops have given sufficient information regarding the different schemes of loans introduced by the company and the complainant has preferred the SX scheme.  The Ops were not imposing any high rate of interest; only imposed as per the terms and conditions accepted by the complainant.  The company has complete rights to dispose-of the pledged golden ornaments in public Auction for default.  The full payment of the amount within interest due is not made within the period, the periodical notice as well as registered notice has been issued to the complainant requesting him to remit the interest and release the pledged gold and also sent registered intimation notice dated: 01.03.2017 and was in receipt of complainant.  And also published in local daily news papers such as Kannada Prabha and also in Deccan Chronicle on 21.02.2017 about the auction of the gold.  Since the complainant did not show interest to settle the loan amount they have constrained to sell the said gold ornaments in auction which is the only security for the loan advanced, in auction after complying with all the legal formalities. 

 

(b)    It is further contended that, after adjusting the balance sale proceedings to the loan account, the amount of Rs.1,996/- as surplus in the complainant loan account.  And complainant had also taken another loan of Rs.6,000/- on 03.04.2014, which was also in the auction list and the amount of Rs.1,876/- was adjusted towards the complainant’s loan account.  After adjusting the said amount the balance amount of Rs.80/- was sent through cheque to complainant on 05.05.2017 vide cheque No.59019.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on their part hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

 

04.   The complainant has submitted affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and marked documents as Exhibit-P.1 to P.4 as mentioned below:-

(i) Original receipt towards the gold pleadged dated: 01.10.2016 issued by OP no.2

(ii) Original receipt of interest paid on 15.02.2017

(iii) Copy of legal notice dated: 28.04.2017

(iv) Reply notice dated: 07.06.2017.

 

05.   On behalf of Ops Sri. Murali.P.V, Area Head of Manappuram Finance Limited, has sworn his affidavit evidence.  And the learned counsel appearing for Ops has submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i) Receipt dated: 01.10.2016 towards pledging of gold

(ii) Demand Promissory Note

(iii) Gold Loan statement

(iv) Issued Cheque Amount

(v) Complainant Notice copy

 

06.   Heard arguments as advanced by both sides.

 

07.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

(1) Is there deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

 

(2) If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as he sought?

 

(3) What order?

 

08.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1):-      In the Negative

POINT (2):-      In the Negative

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINTS (1) & (2):-

09.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

10.   On careful perusal of entire pleadings and documents submitted by both parties, as per Exhibit-P.1 which is gold pledged receipt, it is true that, the complainant had availed the said gold loan in SX Scheme for having interest at the rate of 24% for 01-60 days, 26% for 60-90 days and 29% for 91 and above days and the due date is 29.12.2016.  This is very much within the knowledge of the complainant.  The OP had replied to the legal notice of the complainant on 07.06.2017 and letter dated: 01.03.2017 which is demand notice and auction intimation letter clearly reveals that, there is an intimation to the complainant with regard to the arrears of the said loan and intimation is given to the complainant to settle the said loan and release the gold ornaments.  But the complainant does not shown any interest towards it.  Later on the Ops have published the said notice in news paper such as Kannada Prabha dated: 21.02.2017, even for this also the complainant did not released the gold ornaments.  According to the document submitted by Ops auction details the said gold was auctioned on 03.04.2017 and the surplus amount was sent to the complainant vide cheque No.59019.

11.   In view of aforesaid discussion it is crystal clear that, since complainant did not obeyed the terms and conditions of the said loan, the Ops after following all possible legal formalities have taken steps to auction the said gold ornaments to recover the loan.  Therefore in our opinion, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.   Accordingly we answered point (1) & (2) in the Negative.

 

POINT (3):-

12.   In view of the above discussions on Point (1) & (2) we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint stands dismissed with a direction to both parties to bear their own costs.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 28^th DAY OF APRIL 2018)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT