Complaint filed on: 11.07.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 20.01.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.1235/2014

DATED THIS THE 20^th JANUARY OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant: -                     

Smt.Sabithedevi

W/o Late G.P.Nagaraja

Aged 53 years

R/o No.143/23, Flat No.004, ‘B’ Block, Vishal Kuteer, Kathriguppe

Bengaluru-85

    By Adv. Sri.B.R.Deepak

V/s

Opposite party:-       

The Muthoot Finance Ltd.,

Srinivas Nagara

RBI Licence No-N16-00167

Bengaluru-50

By Adv.Sri.K.S.Venkataramana

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has been alleging the deficiency in service in auctioning the pledged gold items and for not informing her before auctioning them by the Opposite party and has claimed the total compensation of Rs.3,28,720/- with 18% interest.

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that her husband G.P.Nagaraja who borrowed the personal loan of Rs.1,80,000/- from the Opposite party as per endorsement Ex-A1/Ex-B1 on 23.01.2012 by pledging 93.70 grams of 8 items of her gold ornaments, died on 05.12.2012 as supported by death certificate Ex-A6. After attending the funeral rights she informed to the Opposite party her intention of closing the pledge/loan account of her husband. She repeatedly visited more than 7 times till 31.12.2013 starting from 15.12.2012. The Opposite party who informed her to furnish the death certificate, notarized affidavits, indemnity bond, photo identity proof & address proof     documents. Later without giving information/notice forfeited the gold items and closed the loan account.  She learnt with shock on 31.12.2013 for the first time and sought for required details about their act.  When it was not replied, she sent legal notice Ex-A3 dated 23.04.2014 and it was replied as per Ex-A4 dated 09.05.2014. The Opposite party has taken the defence that in terms and conditions of the loan transactions, after informing in the public notice through paper dated 05.09.2013 through registered auctioneer auctioned the items on 17.09.2013.  The said act which came to her knowledge only through reply notice, shows the deficiency in their service and hence she filed this complaint.

          3. The Opposite party has filed the version contending that Complainant’s husband G.P.Nagaraja who availed the loan by executing the pledge form, loan application, KYC, failed to discharge the loan amount despite the reminders made orally, through notices and requests made over phone and did not turn up and hence by issuing the notice in leading newspaper on 05.09.2013, they auctioned the items and closed the account. Thereafter only the Complainant approached them. Till then there was no attempts made by the Complainant and her husband. This complaint is filed on false and untenable grounds. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          4. The Complainant and official of Opposite party filed their affidavit evidences and relied on Ex-A1 to Ex-A6 and Ex-B1 to Ex-B8 documents respectively. Written arguments were filed by both sides. Arguments were heard.  

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the deficiency in service in not informing her before auctioning the pledged gold items by the Opposite party  ?
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that the husband of the Complainant G.P.Nagaraja (shown in Ex-B2/driving licence) who died on 05.12.2012 as supported by Ex-A6 death certificate had availed the personal loan of Rs.1,80,000/- from the Opposite party finance company by executing the documents including Ex-B1/KYC form, by pledging 8 items of gold ornaments as per Ex-B3/A1. He had furnished his telephone number as 9448493369 to maintain it in “gold loan interest collection-telephonic contact register” as per its extract Ex-B8. He had agreed to pay interest at 18% p.a. for 3 months/Ex-B6, 22% p.a. for 6 months/Ex-B5 and 25% p.a. for 12 months as admitted in the legal notice Ex-A3.

          8. After the death of husband G.P.Nagaraja, the Complainant as his wife (shown in genealogy tree as per Ex-A2) got issued the legal notice dated 23.04.2014 and it was replied by the Opposite party as per Ex-A4 dated 09.05.2014.

          9. The allegations of the Complainant that when there was fluctuations in the gold rate during the year 2013 as shown in Ex-A5 information list, she approached the Opposite party more than 7 times after she attending funeral of her husband till December 2013 informing them to close the account and collect the loan amount with interest. After receiving of the reply as per Ex-A4 only, she learnt that all the items were auctioned without intimating her and thereby there is deficiency in their service.

          10. The above allegations of the Complainant are denied by the Opposite party by furnishing Ex-B4 to Ex-B8 documents and contending that her husband was repeatedly contacted over phone as shown in Ex-B8 register extract several times on completion of the intervals as supported by information register extract Ex-B5 dated 16.08.2012, Ex-B6 dated 14.04.2013 and he did not turn up inspite of oral intimation over phone. They got it published in the New Indian Express English Daily dated 05.09.2013 as shown in Ex-B7 and thereby the Complainant has no right to make all these allegations. The Opposite party has also furnished the postal acknowledgement for having sent the intimation dated 28.08.2013 as per Ex-B4.

          11. The Complainant has not produced any contra materials to the produced documents of the Opposite party. The relevant entries of the documents maintained in the office of the Opposite party out of hundreds/thousands of such transactions cannot be disbelieved. The said documents show that absence of repayment of loan amount made them to send the intimations by phone and also by notices and without knowing the death of G.P.Nagaraja they proceeded in issuing the notices. There is no evidence to show that the Complainant had informed by furnishing all the documents about the death of her husband to the Opposite party in 2012 itself. Mere production of death certificate without establishing date of communication of the same to the Opposite party has no force. Hence the contention of the Complainant that without informing her, the Opposite party auctioned the gold items pledged by her husband loses its importance. The Opposite party has established through cogent evidence about the attempts made by him to inform to the borrower G.P.Nagaraja and such attempts are sufficient to show that the Opposite party has taken proper steps and adopted proper procedure for auctioning of the pledged items and such process cannot be doubted as contended by the Complainant. There is no deficiency in the service/process adopted by the Opposite party. The Complainant has failed to establish the Consumer Dispute No.1 and accordingly it is answered in the negative.

          12. Consumer Dispute No.2: In view of the findings of Consumer Dispute No.1 the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The Complaint of the Complainant is here by dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 20th day of January 2017).

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party