BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31st day of December, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.113/2009

Between

Complainant : Minoy Mathew,

Manikkattu House,

Nedumkandam P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: V.M.Joymon)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Managing Director,

Muthoot Finance,

Muthoot Chambers,

Ernakulam, Cochi.

2. The Manager,

Muthoot Finance Limited,

PME Towers, Ist Floor,

Padinjarekavala Branch,

Nedumkandam P.O,

Idukki District.

(Both by Adv:K.P.Agimon)

O R D E R

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
 

The complainant on 3.03.2007 pledged gold ornaments weighing 155.400 gms with the opposite party and obtained Rs.1,20,900/- and an agreement was executed for the same. The rate of interest of the said loan was 12% per month. He paid 3 months interest on 9.06.2007 and renewed the gold loan. In December 2008, the complainant approached the opposite party to close his gold loan. The opposite party charged 18 months interest that is Rs.67,840/-. The total amount becomes Rs.1,88,740/-. So he could not close his gold loan. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party to reduce the excess amount of interest, but no reply was given by the opposite party. Again the complainant approached the opposite party to close his gold loan, then the opposite party informed him that the gold was already sold. The steps taken for the sale of the gold without any intimation to the complainant was illegal. He objected and demanded return of the ornaments. But the opposite party has not so far returned the ornaments. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for a direction to return the pledged ornaments and to pay compensation.
 

2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, since the relationship between the parties is that of a debtor-creditor. There is no legality or scope for alleging deficiency in service, the petition is liable to be dismissed without any further action. The opposite party is a non-banking finance company. It is admitted that the complainant had availed of a loan of Rs.1,20,900/- from the opposite party by pledging gold ornaments on 3.03.2007 under Flexi Personal Loan Scheme for a period of one month. But he failed to renew the loan amount before 3.04.2007. Since the complainant did not redeem the pledge amount within the stipulated time, the opposite party has demanded only the interest and fine for the delayed payment. The complainant has agreed the rate of interest and accepting the term of pledge. On 13.03.2008, the opposite party sent a registered notice to the complainant. But he had not redeemed or released the gold ornaments. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount as compensation. The opposite party is not bound to pay any amount to the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3(series) marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R3 marked on the side of the opposite party.
 

5. The POINT :- The only defence set up by the opposite party in his written version is that the complainant was failed to repay the loan amount within one month. The complainant was examined as PW1. On 3.03.2007, the complainant pledged 155.400 gms of gold ornaments and obtained Rs.1,20,900/- from the opposite party's finance. Ext.P1 is the receipt of the same. Ext.P2 is the copy of the legal notice. Ext.P3 (series) is the AD Cards. But no reply was given by the opposite party. The complainant as PW1 has sworn to the effect that when he came to the office of the opposite party to redeem the pledged article on 5.02.2009, he was directed to remit Rs.1,88,740/- by way of principal and interest. In Ext.P1 document, the reverse side of the document, the first condition is that the interest is 15% per annum. The complainant could not take the gold ornaments. He sent Ext.P2 legal notice to the opposite party, but no reply was given by them. After few months, he approached the opposite party's office for the pledged article, he was informed that the ornaments were taken for auction and the loan closed. In the cross examination of PW1, he admitted that he could not take the gold ornaments within the time limit. The opposite party was examined as DW1. He deposed that the gold loan was under Flexi Personal Loan Scheme that is the interest rate is 14% plus service charge 5% also charged. In the Ext.R1 document itself it is mentioned that the loan is under Flexi Personal Loan Scheme for a period of one month. Ext.R2 is the postal receipt of the registered notice sent to the complainant on 13.03.2008. Ext.R3 is the AD Card signed by the complainant on 14.03.2008. But no reply was given by the complainant. On 15.01.2009 the gold ornaments were sold by the opposite party. In the cross examination of DW1, it is stated that the market value of the gold was not declined during the period. The sequence of the events would go to show that the case spoken to by the complainant is false. Exts.R2 and R3 shows that the opposite party sent notice to the complainant on 13.03.2008. In Ext.R3 document the complainant signed the AD Card on 14.03.2008. There is no evidence to prove that the complainant went to the office of the opposite party to redeem the pledged article. The complainant himself has admitted that he could not take the gold ornaments after 18 months or renew the gold loan. Therefore from the evidence no deficiency in service can be found against the opposite party. So the complainant is not entitled to the directions prayed for.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2009

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-
 

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Monoy Mathew

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - Anitha Gopal

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Gold Loan Receipt for Rs.1,20,900/-

Ext.P2 - Copy of Legal Notice dated 18.03.2009 issued by the advocate of the complainant

Ext.P3(series) - AD Cards(2 Nos)

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Flexi Personal Loans(Customer's Undertaking)

Ext.R2 - Postal Receipt

Ext.R3 - AD Card