Complaint filed on: 16-01-2016                                                      Disposed on: 12-01-2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101

CC.No.13/2016

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF JANAURY 2017

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH, B.A, LLB, MEMBER

SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -

L.R.Karibasavaiah

S/o. Rangaiah,

Aged about 32 years,

Residing at Linganahalli village,

Nelahal Post,

Bellavi Hobli,

Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru

District

(By advocate Sri.Ramesha.S.)

V/s

Opposite party:-       

The Manager,

Manappuram Finance Limited, Raghavendra Nagara branch, Tumakuru Town,

Tumakuru

(By advocate Sri.B.R.Prabhulinga Murthy)

ORDER

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed this complainant against the OP, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OP to release the gold ornaments/award compensation for the value of the gold ornaments and to pay the damage of Rs.1,00,000=00 towards deficiency in service and mental agony and pass such other relief as deemed fit, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.

           The complainant is the owner of the gold ornaments i.e. Chain one with Lkt, Finger rings 2 with thread, Chain with one Lkt, total net weight 23.6 grams and 31.2 grams. The OP is registered company running banking business and other finance service.

          The complainant had approached the OP’s branch at Raghavendranagara to raise the gold loan pledged the above said gold ornaments for an amount of Rs.58,500=00 in loan account No.013980700002186, and Rs.43,000=00 in loan account No.013980700002185 dated 13-2-2015. At the time of borrowing the said loans, the OP assured to the complainant that, the OP will collect the interest @ 2% p.m. Subsequently, the complainant was surprised saw the receipt of the OP’s interest rate is 25% per annum, which is arbitrary and contrary to the Interest Act.    

          The complainant further submitted that, the complainant was not able to update the installments, due to loss of crops. However, the complainant honestly update the interest and paid total interest amount of Rs.20,022=00 in various dates. After receipt of the same, the OP told that the said gold ornaments sent for the auction to the main branch, after received back the said gold ornaments and intimate the same to get it release and discharging the loan amount. Thereafter on 17-11-2015 the complainant went to the OP’s office and enquired about the receiving the gold ornaments. The OP replied that, the said gold ornaments were not return from the head office.

          The complainant further submitted that, the OP without proper intimation and prior to issuance of notice to the complainant and without permission of the complainant, the OP sent the gold ornaments to the Head office for the auction is illegal and arbitrary and the auction of the OP is against the banking regulation and direction issued by the RBI. The complainant is ready and willing to discharge his loan amount along with interest from the date of November till realization of gold ornaments, but the OP is not considered his request.

          The complainant further submitted that, the complainant got issued legal notices dated 20-11-2015 and 23-11-2015 and the said legal notices were served on the OP. Even after receipt of the legal notices, the OP has failed to release the gold ornaments to the complainant. Subsequently, on 4-11-2011 the OP issued a reply notice to the complainant stating that, the gold ornaments were auctioned. Due to illegal act and deficiency of service of the OP, the complainant has suffered mental agony and caused damages to his family. Hence, the present complaint is filed.

3. After service of notice, the OP has appeared through his counsel and filed objections contending interalia as under.

The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. The averments made in the complaint are false and denied and other averments made in the complainant is not within the knowledge of this OP. The complainant is not a consumer as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) of the CP Act. The complainant has not purchased any goods or availed any services of the OP. The complainant had taken loans from the company by pleading gold ornaments as security for the same and the relationship between the complainant and the OP is one that of “debtor” and “creditor” and hence the transactions are only specific contracts and do not fall within the purview of CP Act.

          The OP further submitted that, as per the documents, the complainant had availed the said loan on 13-2-2015 and agreed to repay the gold loan on or before 11-8-2015 and the tenure of the loan was 180 days and it was bounden duty of the complainant to settle the loan account as agreed. The company has the right and authority to dispose of the pledged gold ornaments in public auction, if the loan amount with accrued interest is not made on or before the date of maturity of the loan. The OP has issued registered notice of auction intimations to the complainant on 13-8-2015. Even after the said notice, the complainant did not settle the loans, but only paid interest up to 21-7-2015 and 13-6-2015. It was requested to the complainant to redeem the jewels within the 10 days from 7-11-2015 and the complainant had promised to redeem the pledge by paying entire loan along with interest, but the complainant had not turned up. It was clearly informed to the complainant that if any failure in redeeming the pledge within the period specified thereon, the pledged gold ornaments would be auctioned without any further notice. The OP has contacted the complainant through telephone and requested him to settle the pledge and to avoid auction. The OP has issued notice in Indian Express and Samyuktha Karnataka Daily News Papers. The details of the auctionable pledges were also published in the notice board of the branch of the OP.  The complainant did not settle the loan as per the agreed terms and conditions. The OP was constrained to sell the ornaments in public auction after complying with all the requisite legal formalities. Hence the request of the complainant for return of the gold ornaments is not sustainable. After adjusting the sale proceeds to the balance in the respective loan accounts of the complainant, it is seen that there was a surplus amount of Rs.2190=00 in loan account no.013298070000 and a loss of Rs.214=00 in loan account no.0132980700002186. As per the agreed terms of the loan agreement executed by the complainant, the OP has right to adjust the surplus amount towards any other liability of the complainant to the company. After adjusting the above mentioned amounts, an amount of Rs.1972=00 is adjusted to one of his other loan account No.0132980700002503 which is seen over duty. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.

4.  In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version.   The complainant has produced documents, which were marked as Ex-P1 to P13. The OPs have produced the documents, which were marked as Ex-R1 to R12. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents of both parties and posted the case for order.

5. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.

1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged by the complainant?
2. What Order?  

6. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1: In the Negative

          Point no.2: As per the final order below.

REASONS

          7. On perusal of the pleadings, affidavit evidence, objections of the OP and documents produced by both parties, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant had pledged his gold ornament (total net weighted of 23.6 grams and 31.2 grams) with the OP. The complainant had borrowed/availed gold loan for Rs.58,500=00 and Rs.43,000=00 at the rate of 25% per annum from  the OP on 13-2-2015 by pledging his gold ornament and agreed to repay the loan amount on or before 11-8-2015 and the tenure  of the gold loan was 180 days.

          8. The complainant alleged that, after receiving the loan interest amount on 7-11-2015. The OP without intimation to the complainant, the OP had sent the said gold ornaments for the auction to the main branch. The complainant also alleged that he has not received any notice from the OP regarding sale of pledged gold ornaments by auction as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.

9. On perusal of the said document, it is seen that, as per the terms and conditions enumerated/detailed in the loan agreement, the loan terms was 180 days and the complainant should repay the entire loan amount along with other charges within 180 days. Further the auction notice of the pledged gold ornaments of the complainant has published in local daily news papers dated 24-09-2915, it reads as under:

“ºÀgÁdÄ ¥ÀæPÀluÉ:- ¤¢ðµÀÖªÁV CqÀªÀÅzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ PɼÀUÉ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ SÁvÉUÀ¼À°è CqÀªÀÅ ElÖ a£ÀßzÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 9-10-2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀƪÁðºÀß 10 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ F PɼÀUÉ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ ±ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è ºÀgÁdÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä GzÉÝò¸À¯ÁVzÉ, £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬ÄvÀ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÉÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖ £ÀAvÀgÀ . . .  ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä «¥sÀ¯ÁgÁzÀ (r¥sÁ¯ïÖ ªÀiÁrzÀ) UÁæºÀPÀgÀ a£ÁߨsÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ ºÀgÁdÄ ªÀiÁqÀzÀ a£ÁߨsÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀߣÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀƪÀð ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£Àß PÉÆqÀzÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà EvÀgÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÀAzÀÄ ºÁgÀdÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀƪÀð ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀzÉ ºÀgÁdÄ ¸ÀܼÀ CxÀªÁ ¢£ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÀgÁdÄ PÉÃAzÀæzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ eÁ®vÁt. .. . “

As per the paper publication, it is seen that, the OP has mentioned auction dated 9-10-2015, and auctioned pledged gold ornaments of the complainant in public auction on 16-11-2015 as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.

10. The documentary evidence of the complainant that, he acted as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement by making payment towards principal and interest of loan is not corroborated by clear and tangible documentary evidence. On the other hand, the document of complainant reveals that after availing the loan, the complainant has not paid the loan amount well within 180 days as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Hence, the OP has issued public notice in New India Express and Samyuktha Karnataka daily news paper dated 24-9-2015. Thereafter, the complainant paid interest amount on 7-11-2015. Admittedly, the OP had given time to pay the loan amount, but he complainant had failed to pay the loan amount. Hence he OP had auctioned the pledged gold ornaments on 16-11-2015 as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.         

          11. As such the defence taken by the complainant in relating to non-issuance of the notice is not accepted as such the action taken by the OP is not unlawful. Hence, the OP has acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Hence we do not find any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OP in conducting the public auction of gold ornament of complainant. On the other hand, the complainant has not acted in accordance with the terms and condition of agreement and has committed default in paying the loan amount along with interest well within the stipulated period. Hence, we come to conclusion that, there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP in conducting the public auction as per the terms and condition of the agreement and accordingly we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 12^th day of January 2017).

LADY MEMBER          MEMBER                   PRESIDENT