BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF MARCH 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO.822/2020
The Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance Ltd., No.21, 7th Main, 80 Feet Road, 1st Block, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 034, Rep. by its Manager Sri P. Nagaraja. (By Sri Amit Deshponde) | …… Appellant/s |
V/s
Sri M. Venkatesh, S/o Muniswamy, Aged about 54 years, Residing at No.49/2, Kaikondarhalli, Bengaluru 560 035. (By Sri Kemparaju) | ..…Respondent/s |
ORDER ON ADMISSION
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.20.11.2019 passed in CC.No.89/2017 on the file of 3rd Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru which directed to return the gold ornaments by receiving balance loan amount and if not, return the gold ornaments of same weight, purity and quality to the complainant along with Rs.15,000/- compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as litigation costs.
2. The appellant/Opposite Party states in his appeal that the respondent/ complainant had obtained gold loan of Rs.30,000/- by pledging gold chain weighing 16 gms on 21.05.2014 and agreed to pay interest at 2% per month. After receiving the said loan amount, the complainant had not paid either the interest or cleared the loan. Inspite of repeated notices issued to the complainant, not repaid the loan amount having no option, this appellant after paper publication had sold the gold ornaments in public auction and recovered the loan amount. The extra proceeds of the auction sale was also paid by way of cheque to the complainant. After receiving the cheque amount, the complainant alleged deficiency in service and sought for return of the gold ornaments and filed a complaint before the District Commission. The District Commission without considering the said facts allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to return the gold ornaments which is not possible. The complainant is a chronic defaulter in repaying the loan amount. Hence, there is no deficiency in service. Inspite of that the District Commission made an illegal order, hence, prayed to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
3. Inspite of the sufficient opportunities provided, the appellant had not submitted the arguments.
4. On perusal of the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order and documents produced before the District Commission, it is an admitted fact that the respondent/complainant had availed loan to the tune of Rs.30,000/- by pledging the gold chain weighing 16 grms and it is also not in dispute that he had not paid the loan amount as per the agreed terms. It is noticed in the Order that the respondent went to the appellant bank for realization of the gold ornaments, the same was denied and stated that the said gold was sold in a public auction for recovery of the loan amount whereas the complainant had pointed out no such notice was served on them and even the sale notice also not served on them and this appellant had sold gold ornaments violating the terms and conditions, hence, alleged deficiency in service filed a complaint before the District Commission. The District Commission in the finding had noticed that this appellant had published a paper publication in a tiny numbers which is not possible to notice that the complainant’s loan was also included. The District Commission also noticed that this appellant had not followed as per the norms prior to the public sale and hold that this appellant rendered deficiency in service in not returning the gold ornaments inspite of payment offered by the respondent.
5. The Order passed by the District Commission according to us is in accordance with Law. There is no error in the Order passed by the District Commission. The Opposite Party had not produced pre-notice served on the respondent before the District Commission. The paper publication which was taken by this appellant is not proper and in accordance with Law holding that the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint. We found that there are no merits in the appeal. Furthermore, the appellant has not submitted any supporting arguments or evidence before this Commission to substantiate his defence. In the absence of such, we found no merits in the appeal. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
