Date of Filing : 09.05.2012

  Date of Order : 30.06.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

Dated 30^th JUNE 2012

PRESENT

Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL,   …….                PRESIDENT

Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB.                        ……..     MEMBER

Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB.                    ……..     MEMBER

CC No. 57 / 2012

G.K. Sridhar,

S/o. K.V. Krishnappa,

R/at: Gadde Kannur Village,

Tamaka Post,

Kolar Taluk & District.

(By Sri. A. Srinivasa, Adv.)                                     ……. Complainant

V/s.

The Manager,

Manappuram General Finance &

Leasing Ltd., Kolar Branch,

Near Clock Tower,

Kolar.

(By Sri. B. Ravishankar, Adv.)                                …… Opposite Party

ORDER

By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainant made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the OP to release Gold ornaments by taking principal and the interest from the Complainant are necessary:

Complainant has pledged his Gold ornaments on 05.03.2009 for Rs.45,000/-, on 09.06.2009 for Rs.87,300/-, on 24.06.2009 for Rs.33,000/-, on 20.07.2009 for Rs.26,400/-, on 11.08.2009 for Rs.16,000/-, on 24.08.2009 for Rs.44,000/-.  Complainant had paid periodical interest on the said loan upto August 2010.  Without intimating the Complainant, OP has auctioned the Gold ornaments in July 2011 and sent Rs.24,457/- to the Complainant by Cheque dtd. 06.06.2011. Immediately Complainant wrote two letters to OP to know the auction proceedings, but OP has not replied the same.  Complainant issued notice on 26.12.2011 to release the pledged Gold ornaments.  OP did not care to receive the same.  Hence, there is deficiency in service. 

2.       In brief version of the OP are:-

Complainant is not a consumer.  Complainant had availed eight Gold loans totaling to Rs.2,94,200/- from the OP for 180 days under the ‘B’ scheme.  Accordingly, if the Complainant fails to pay the borrowed amount with interest within a period of one year from the date of its loan or within such period as demanded by the OP, OP shall have the right to sell the ornaments at the risk of the borrower either by public auction or by private arrangement at any time after 2 weeks from the date of notice. In this case, as the Complainant has not paid any principal or any interest, OP has issued notice to the Complainant which was returned with an endorsement “not claimed”.  Hence, OP after completing the formalities had auctioned the Gold ornaments and sold the same and after adjusting the amount retuned the excess amount of Rs.24,497/- to the Complainant.  Only after that, this Complaint is filed.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases, parties have filed their respective affidavits & documents.  Arguments were heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:

          (A)     Whether there is deficiency in service ?

          (B)     What order ?

5.       Our findings are:

          (A)     Positive

          (B)     As per detailed order for the following reasons

REASONS

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits & documents on record, it is an admitted fact that Complainant had pledged Gold ornaments and obtained loan from OP as under.

7.       Here it is an admitted fact that the Complainant received a Cheque from the OP on 06.06.2011 for Rs.24,457/- stating that OP has sold Gold ornaments and excess is Rs.24,457/- after adjusting the loan amount with interest.  On this, Complainant has written to the OP to give details of auction so that he can verify.  Complainant has written two letters to the OP on 06.06.2011 & 05.08.2011 requesting to give the details of auction, that has not been replied by the OP.  OP never stated in their pleadings on what date they have sold the Gold in auction? Who are the bidders participated in the bid? What is the bid amount? Who was the highest bidder? etc.  These details are not even furnished to this Forum.  The main contention of the OP is that they have written letters to the Complainant and it was returned with an endorsement “Not claimed”.  Hence, as the assumption that proper service of notice, they have sold the Gold ornaments. Further, they have stated that they have notified the auction in the paper.  In none of these things it is stated that Complainant had borrowed a particular loan on a particular date, particular weight of Gold, particular amount is due, particular rate of interest, default in repayment of loan amount & interest and if loan is not paid they will sell the Gold ornaments etc.  Hence, under these circumstances, action of the OP in the alleged auction is nothing but a deficiency in service.  It means there is no auction and there is no sale.

8.       Here Complainant also has not whispered what is the amount due.  Even OP also has not stated the same.  Hence, let us go through the records.  According to OP, as on date Complainant is due towards these eight loans i.e., Rs.68,788/-, Rs.1,28,540/-, Rs.48,236/-, Rs.37,942/-, Rs.23,379/-, Rs.19,040/-, Rs.61,531/- & Rs.40,816/-, in all Rs.4,28,272/- respectively. That means as on date, Complainant was due to OP a sum of Rs.4,28,272/- towards loan & interest.  As on date, the value of the Gold is Rs.3,045/- per gram. That means value of the Gold that has been pledged comes to Rs.8,21,115/-  (269.66 grams x Rs.3,045/-).  After adjusting the total loan amount of Rs.4,28,272/- (principal & interest) &  Rs.24,457/- (returned by the OP as excess), the balance payable by the OP to the Complainant comes to Rs.3,92,842/-.  OP is bound to pay this amount.  When the value of the Gold in the ornaments is Rs.8,21,115/-, how can the OP says it has sold in auction.  Even that auction details are not forthcoming.  Hence, auction of the OP is nothing but deficiency in service & unfair trade practice.  Hence, we hold the above points accordingly and we pass the following order:

ORDER

1.       Complaint is allowed in part.

2.       OP is directed to pay Rs.3,92,842/- to the Complainant with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of Complaint until payment within 30 days.

3.       OP is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this litigation.

4.       OP is directed to send the amount as ordered at (2) & (3) above directly to the Complainant by Demand Draft through RPAD and intimate this Forum the compliance of the Order within 45 days.

5.       Send copy of the Order to the parties concerned free of cost.

6.       Return extra sets to the parties concerned under Regulation 20(3) of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of June 2012)

T. NAGARAJA          K.G.SHANTALA           H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO

    Member                         Member                                       President

SSS