BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.681 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO.30 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM GUNTUR
Between:
Muddana Hari Krishna S/o Subba Rao
Aged about 30 years, Occ: Advocate
R/o 7-17-316/13, 7/7, Srinagar,
Guntur
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Regd. Office V/104, Manappuram House,
Valappad PO, Thrissur – 680567.
2. The Manager,
Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Ltd.,
Raghu Mansions, Opp. Sankarvilas,
4/1, Brodiepet, Guntur.
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant Sri V.Gouri Sankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent Sri S.Venkatachalam (R1&2)
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
TUESDAY THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
The appellant obtained a loan for an amount of Rs.2,98,300/- from opposite parties by pledging gold jewelry weighting 329.8 grams worth Rs.5,27,680/-. The loan amount was given in eleven occasions as detailed hereunder:
| S.No. | Pledge No. | Pledge date | Pledge amount | Balance | Due date |
| 1 | 0102750700704101 | 19-03-09 | 37,500.00 | 37,500.00 | 29-06-09 |
| 2 | 0102750700703987 | 09-03-09 | 28,300.00 | 28,300.00 | 29-06-09 |
| 3 | 0102750700704100 | 19-03-09 | 22,700.00 | 22,700.00 | 18-04-09 |
| 4 | 0102750700703633 | 09-02-09 | 18,200.00 | 18,200.00 | 11-04-09 |
| 5 | 0102750700703632 | 09-02-09 | 20,000.00 | 20,000.00 | 29-06-09 |
| 6 | 0102750700703634 | 09-02-09 | 9,800.00 | 9,800.00 | 11-04-09 |
| 7 | 0102750700703809 | 23-02-09 | 20,700.00 | 20,700.00 | 24-04-09 |
| 8 | 0102750700704191 | 26-03-09 | 9,500.00 | 9,500.00 | 29-06-09 |
| 9 | 0102750700704175 | 25-03-09 | 22,600.00 | 22,600.00 | 24-04-09 |
| 10 | 0102750700704176 | 25-03-09 | 81,500.00 | 81,500.00 | 29-06-09 |
| 11 | 0102750700704178 | 25-03-09 | 27,500.00 | 27,500.00 | 29-06-09 |
| | Total :- 11 | | 2,98,300 | 2,98,300 | |
The appellant regularly paid monthly interest without fail. The appellant approached and requested 2nd respondent to receive principle amount and release gold jewelry as he has already paid the agreed interest. The 2nd respondent did not release the gold jewelry unless the appellant paid penal interest at 18% p.a. However the appellant came forward to pay penal interest at 4% p.a. in addition to the agreed interest at 14% p.a. The respondents illegally collected interest for a period prior to the date of advance of loan. The appellant is ready and willing to redeem the gold jewelry by paying the principle amount and agreed normal interest but the respondents are demanded unfair penal interest. The demand of respondents to pay penal interest at 18% p.a. in addition to the normal interest at 14% p.a. is illegal, excessive, unfair and against the principles of natural justice. Due to the attitude of respondents, the appellant suffered a lot of mental agony. Finally appellant got issued a legal notice dt.17-07-09 to 2nd respondent, who received the same and kept quiet.
The respondent no.2 resisted the case contending that the complaint is not maintainable at law or on facts against this respondents. The appellant is not a consumer. The 2nd respondent is one of the branches of 1st respondent situated at Guntur. The appellant approached 2nd respondent and enquired about the terms and conditions of different scheme of loans and also about the rate of interest, mode of payment etc. and after satisfying himself, he availed eleven loans on various occasions as mentioned in complaint and after duly signing the respective agreements. It is purely a contract entered into by the parties after knowing the contents and each party is bound by terms and conditions of the agreement. The appellant having agreed and signed the respective pledge agreement cannot give a goby to them and raise any dispute contrary to the terms and conditions. As long as respondents are acting within the four corners of the pledge agreement, the appellant cannot allege any deficiency of service on the part of respondents and cannot raise any dispute. There is no deficiency of service on the part of respondents. The appellant wants to dispute the quantum of amount payable by him under the respective pledge agreements for which this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The remedy for this type of dispute lies elsewhere and the consumer forum cannot decide the said issue. The appellant has no cause of action to raise any dispute.
The appellant is never ready to pay interest as agreed upon. The 1st respondent duly gave the reply dt.27-07-09 appraising all facts and informing that a sum of Rs.3,16,139/- is due as on 29-07-09 by the appellant under various pledge agreements. In fact as per the agreed terms and conditions, the appellant failed to pay the amount and release the pledged articles. The same will be auctioned to realize the amount due to the respondents. To avoid the same, the appellant got issued a legal notice with all false allegations and with malafide intention. The appellant is not willing and ready to pay the principle and agreed interest. The 2nd respondent never demanded any excess amount.
The appellant has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A35. The 2nd respondent has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.B1 to B12.
The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the premise that as per the terms of the agreement executed by the appellant, the pledged articles will be auctioned to realize the amount due to the respondent company in the event the appellant does not release the items in time.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed the appeal contending that he obtained 11 loans to the tune of RS.2,98,300/- by pledging 329.8 gms of gold during February-March 2009 and the respondents had not issued loan agreement and that the second respondent obtained the appellant’s signature on blank forms. It is contended that the respondent demanded penal interest @ 18% per annum in addition to the normal rate of interest @ 14% per annum totaling 32% per annum. The column in regard to rate of penal interest in clause 3 of the loan application is kept blank and that the respondents have not filed copy of the terms and conditions of the special scheme.
The counsel for the respondents filed written arguments.
The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by misappreciation of fact or law?
The appellant availing loan on 11 occasions from the respondents during February-March 2009 is not disputed. The appellant availed a sum of Rs.2,98,300/- from the respondents by pledging the gold jewelry weighing 329.8 gms. The appellant states that the cost of the gold ornaments pledged with the respondents is Rs.5,07,680/-. According to the appellant the agreed rate of interest is 14% and the second respondent informed him that the gold jewelry will not be released unless the appellant has paid penal interest @ 18% per annum. The appellant agreed to pay penal interest @ 4% per annum in addition to the agreed rate of interest @ 14%. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the agreed rate of interest is 14% and the penal interest is 18% therefore according to the appellant cannot seek to pay interest including penal interest @18% per annum. The terms and conditions incorporated in the receipt as also the loan application goes to show that the penal interest charged would be from 12% to 18% per annum over above the applicable rate of interest and the same fact is mentioned in clause 13 of the application. Clause 13 reads as under:
…………………
Therefore, in terms of clause 13 (e) under special scheme, the rate of interest charged is 14% per annum (14% per week for the first four weeks and 26% per annum, 32% per week) for the remaining period. In the same manner, the other sub-clauses of clause 13 provide for different rates of interest for different period.
It is not the case of the appellant that he was not aware of the terms and conditions of the special scheme nor is it his case that the appellant had not filled up the application form for the purpose of obtaining the loan from the second respondent. By submitting the application form with the terms and conditions therein the appellant had agreed to pay the interest at the rate payable in terms of clause 13 of the application form. Therefore, the respondents are liable to act in accordance with the terms and conditions of the application form.
In the result the appeal dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.03.04.2012
KMK*
