BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.863 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.141 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM MAHABUBNAGAR
Between:
M.Niranjan Reddy S/o Yerkal Reddy
age 53 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Polkampally Village, Addakal Mandal
Mahabubnagar District Appellant/ complainant
1. The Manager, Manappuram General
Finance and Leasing Limited, Shop No.2-6-89
SBH Road, Clock Tower, Mahabubnagar
2. The Managing Director, Manappuram Group of Companies
Manappuram Gold Loans, Velpad
Trichur District Kerala State
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant M/s M.Achuta Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents M/s I.V.Ramesh
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE I/C PRESIDENT
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
MONDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble I/c President)
***
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. He filed complaint seeking direction to the respondents to release his pledged gold ornaments or for payment of difference of cost of the gold items and damages and costs.
2. The case of the appellant as seen from the averments of the complaint is that he availed from the respondents gold loan of `39,000/- on 39,000/- by pledging his 51.9 gms of gold ornaments ,viz, chain, finger rings-2 (SF), Necklace-1 (SF), Matti-4 etc.,under pledge account number A/c No.070303700709196
3. The appellant submitted that when he approached the respondent no.1 to pay the outstanding dues and close the gold loan account, it has not accepted to receive the amount and postponed to close the account from time to time for a period of two years and on 6.06.2011 when the appellant requested the respondent no.1 to receive the amount, it informed him that his pledged ornaments were sold in open auction on 8.02.2011 by the second respondent and for any grievance he can approach the respondent no.2.
4. The appellant submitted that the respondents have to receive the loan amount with agreed rate of interest and return the gold items to him and they disposed of the items without giving notice to him and without obtaining his consent therefor. The respondents not returning the gold ornaments is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The present market value of the pledged ornaments is `1,45,320/- and the loan with interest from 12.10.2009 to 12.09.2011 is `47,970/- and the respondents are liable to return the amount of `1,06,350/-.
5. The respondents resisted the claim by filing written version and contended that the appellant failed to repay the loan amount within the prescribed time and they got issued notice on 22.10.2010 and after giving sufficient time they disposed of the pledged gold items on 8.02.2011 in open auction. Notice was also pasted on the office notice board and by other modes. The calculation of the amount made by the appellant is incorrect. The sale consideration of the gold items is equivalent to the loan amount.
6. The appellant in support of his claim filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, the Manager of the respondent no.1 filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.B1 to B3.
7. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premise that the appellant failed to prove that he approached the respondent no.1 prior to 9.04.2010 and that he failed to prove that the respondent no,1 refused to receive the amount from him . The District Forum opined that there is no evidence to show that the respondents had sent the notice on incorrect addresses of the appellant. It was observed by the District Forum that the notice issued by the respondents would be taken as basis for exercise of their power to sell the pledged gold ornaments.
8. The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents in disposing of the ornaments?
9. It is an admitted fact that the appellant pledged his gold ornaments , viz., 51.9 gms of gold ornaments ,viz, chain, finger rings-2 (SF), Necklace-1 (SF), Matti-4 etc., under pledge account number A/c No.070303700709196 -with the respondent no.1 and availed loan an amount to `39,000/-. The respondent no.1 is the branch office of the respondent no.2. The respondents had not produced the loan agreement to establish the terms and conditions dealing with the pledged items in case of default committed by the appellant in paying the loan amount. In absence of filing of the loan agreement, the date of disbursing the loan amount and the date by which the loan amount is to be repaid has to be culled from the notice receipt of which the appellant has denied.
10. It is not disputed that the appellant has availed the loan amount from the respondents on 12.10.2009. The duration of the loan period as seen from the notice dated 22.10.2010, ExB1 is 9.04.2010. The notice does not disclose the rate of interest or the amount outstanding as on the date it was issued. Admittedly, after availing the loan amount, the appellant paid a few loan installments and thereafter he committed default in repaying the loan amount nor he did pay the interest accrued to the loan account.
11. The respondents sold the pledged gold ornaments in open auction on 8.02.2011 evidenced by notice dated 20.06.2011 which was got issued by the appellant to the respondent no.2. Paragraph 3 of the notice reads as under:
“Further my client brought to my kind notice that he visited your branch office and requested the concerned since two years to return the ornaments, but finally on 6th June, 2011 instead of returning his gold ornaments, simply they gave one receipt stating that my client ornaments were disposed of on 8.2.2011 in the open auction and matter pertains to my client is pending within jurisdiction of Head Office and the surplus amount will be paid as and when the Head Office will sent the amount. The copy of the same is enclosed herewith for your perusal”.
12. Thus, the onus would shift on the respondents to show the transparence in the sale transaction and pay the amount in case if it has received sale proceeds in excess of the outstanding due amount. The branch head of the respondent no.1 issued document dated 6.06.2011 informing the appellant that pledged gold ornaments of the appellant were sold on 8.02.2011 in auction owing to default committed by the appellant in making payment of the loan amount and it would pay the surplus amount as and when the respondent no.2 sanctioned the amount.
13. The respondents have not stated the sale consideration of the pledged gold items. After the respondent no.1 issued ExA4 acknowledging receipt of sale consideration of the pledged gold items in excess of the outstanding amount, the appellant got issued notice dated 20.06.2011 claiming the difference amount of `81,000/- on the basis of the market value of the gold as on the date of issue of the notice, i.e, 20.06.2011. The only document that show that the outstanding due as on 8.02.2013 is ExA2, the statement of account which shows the amount as `54,973/-.
14. Interestingly, the sale proceeds of the pledged ornaments is shown in ExA2 as `54,973/- and the sale proceeds of the gold items is shown as equivalent to the outstanding dues. What is mentioned in the statement of account is contrary to the contents of ExA4 which would establish the sale proceeds of the gold items in excess of the outstanding dues. The respondents nowhere in their written version stated the exact amount received as sale proceeds of the pledged gold ornaments. The appellant in his notice dated 20.06.2011 referred to the difference amount of sale proceeds of the gold items and the outstanding dues basing on the present market value with reference to his request for closure of the loan account and paragraph 4 of the notice reads as follows:
“Further I would like to bring your kind notice that your company and Mahabubnagar Branch Employees did great mistake by not informing my client about conducting auction of my client’s ornaments and caused much loss. That at present the total value of my client’s ornament is at about 1 lack and twenty five thousands. My client has taken only Rs.39,000/-. That difference amount is at about 81,000/-. As such if the ornaments or its difference value amount and its interest @ Rs.2/- per month from the date on which my client first visited your branch office to close the account is not returned to my client as early as possible my client will put to very loss and due to your company mistake, my client’s daughter marriage is not performed within the time and due to which my client suffered mentally and financially”.
15. The respondents had not given reply to the notice of the appellant. The silence of the respondents or their failure to reply the notice may not be considered as the factor showing their negligence where they had conducted the auction in transparent manner and after adjusting the sale proceeds to the loan account returned the excess amount to the appellant.
16. However, it becomes an important factor where the respondent no.1 conducted the auction and it had forwarded the sale proceeds to the respondent no.2. The respondents adjusted the sale proceeds to the outstanding dues of the loan account and they had not bothered to pay the excess amount to the appellant. The respondents had not informed the appellant the exact amount received as consideration of the gold items in auction. All the facts establish deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
17. The appellant claimed the amount of `81,000/- towards difference amount. The respondents or the appellant had not placed evidence to show the market value of the gold items as on the date of auction i.e., 8.02.2011. This Commission considering the admission of the surplus amount by the respondent no.1 is inclined to fix the amount the respondents liable to pay at `30,000/- and for the mental tension suffered by the appellant and on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the respondents are held liable to pay a sum of `20,000/- towards compensation to the appellant.
18. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. Consequently, the complaint is allowed. The respondents/opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of `50,000/- together with costs of `5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.16.12.2013
కె.ఎం.కె.*
