BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                        : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU V.R                                           : MEMBER

C.C. No. 138/2013 Filed on 02.04.2013

ORDER DATED: 07.11.2019

Complainant:

Rejimon, S/o Prabhakaran, Roadarikathu Veedu, Cherapally, Aryanadu, Thiruvananthapuram-695 542.

(By Adv. K. Satheesh Kumar & Vishnu Thampi)

Opposite parties:

1. The Branch Manager, Manappuram Finance Ltd., Branch Aryanadu, Aryanadu, Thiruvananthapuram-695 542.

2. The Chairman & Managing Director, Manappuram Finance Ltd., Administrative Office, Manappuram House, Valappad, Thrissur-680 567. 

(By Adv. Asok Kumar J.S.)

This case having been heard on 25.09.2019, the Forum on 07.11.2019 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER

The case of the complainant is as follows:  The complainant availed a gold loan from 1^st opposite party on 26.09.2011 for a sum of Rs. 79,000/- by pledging 41 gram of gold ornaments.  The 1^st opposite party is a finance company who grants loan accepting gold as security.  On 20.10.2011 the complainant availed another loan by pledging 118.5 gm of gold ornaments for an amount of Rs. 2,45,000/-.  Due to the financial constraints the complainant could not redeem the pledge.  On 31.01.2013 the complainant received two notices in respect of both pledge numbers requiring him to redeem the pledge within 14 days of receipt of the notice, else it would be sold in public auction and all dues will be realized from the sale price.  The notice was issued by 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant went to 2^nd opposite party with the intention to clear the interest and other charges and to repledge the gold for a higher amount as he could not arrange sufficient money for redeeming the gold ornaments.  When contacted the 1^st opposite party told him that the ornaments were under the control of recovery departments who issued the notice and asked him to contact after a week for redeeming the loan.  When the complainant visited the 2^nd opposite party on 15^th as instructed by him he was informed that the ornaments have already auctioned and the account has been closed.  The opposite parties with an intention to make financial gain illegally turned him away on 08.01.2012 giving a false promise that he could redeem the gold ornaments after a week.  On 08.01.2013 the complainant had approached the 1^st opposite party to renew the gold loan he was not allowed to do so by asking him to come after a week.  On 15.01.2013 the complainant had approached again for redeeming he was told that ornaments has already been auctioned as per the notice.  The complainant has reason to believe that the gold ornaments were disposed off by opposite parties before expiry of the notice period.  Hence the complaint.   

The opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions.  The complainant is not a consumer as defined by the Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant has not purchased any goods or availed any services from the opposite party.  Since the case of the complainant is pertaining to accounts and its legal consequences, the same will not fall within the purview of this Forum.  The amount due to the parties is a matter which has to be settled after taking accounts and this relief could be granted only by regular civil courts.  As per the terms and conditions of the loan application and agreement executed by the complainant with the opposite parties the dispute if any shall be referred to arbitration proceedings.  The complainant had taken two gold loans from 1^st opposite party for Rs. 79,000/- and Rs. 2,45,000/- on 26.09.2011 and 20.10.2011.  Pawn tickets were issued to the complainant duly signed by him and the Manager of the Branch mentioning the rate of interest, the due date, overdue interest, tenure of the loan etc.  After due date the due notices were sent to the complainant, which he had duly received.  The tenure of the loan was one year.  The complainant has to pay the monthly interest to avoid penal interest and settle the pledge within one year.  The complainant has not paid any amount towards interest.  As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement signed by the complainant if the full repayment of loan is not made within 12 months from the date of pledge the company shall have the right to sell or dispose of the ornaments at the risk of borrower by public auction or by private arrangements.  Since the complainant did not pay any amount even after he was requested to remit the interest due and as the market value of gold has come down, registered auction notices were issued to the complainant and he was informed that if he does not settle the pledge within 14 days of the receipt of the same the gold will be auctioned as per the company rules and as per the terms and conditions of the loan to realize the amount due to the company.  The complainant had admitted in the complaint the receipt of the auction notices sent by the company.  The list of the pledges which were sent for auction had also been displayed in the notice board in the branch.  In spite of the best efforts of the opposite parties complainant did not come forward to pay any amount.  The opposite parties have given the complainant enough time to pay the interest dues.  The complainant never approached the opposite parties to redeem the gold ornaments as alleged.  Even though the opposite parties had given 14 days time to the complainant to redeem the pledged articles he had neither come forward to redeem the gold nor made any communication regarding his inconvenience within the time stipulated in the auction notices.  The complainant came to the branch only on 08.03.2013 after the gold was auctioned.  On 08.03.2013 when the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party the complainant was informed about the auction sale conducted after publishing in the newspaper as well as in the branch notice board.  The auction of the gold ornaments of complainant was conducted on 23.03.2013 for Rs. 90,850/- and Rs. 2,80,359/-.  The amounts due in the pledge account as on 23.03.2013 were Rs. 1,13,715/- and Rs. 3,47,002/- in gold loan account.  After adjusting the auction amount towards the pledge settlement amount Rs. 22,865/- and Rs. 66,643/- in two pledges are pending as sale loss.  The complainant is duty bound to make good the loss amount due in these two loan accounts.  The complainant was not given any false promise as alleged by the complainant.  When the complainant realized that there is loss in the auction and amount is still due from him to the company and the opposite parties are taking steps to realize the balance amount due by resorting to legal proceedings, the complainant had filed this complaint with a view to prevent the opposite parties from realizing the auction loss.  Even though the period mentioned in the loan agreement is for a period of one year the opposite party had granted sufficient time till March 2013 to enable the complainant to redeem the gold ornaments.  The complainant did not care to approach the opposite parties or care to redeem the gold ornaments or even to pay any amount towards interest.  The complainant is fully aware that in the open market the value of used gold ornaments would never fetch the bullion value of gold and that while purchasing new ornaments the making charges also will have to be incurred.  The gold ornaments were sold for Rs. 2,765/- per gram.  The complainant did not approach the opposite parties within the notice period.  There is no deficiency in service at all on the side of opposite parties.     

Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents.   Opposite parties filed chief affidavit and documents.  Exts. D1 to D5 marked on the side of opposite parties. 

Issues to be considered:

 (i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

(ii) If so, what is the relief and cost?    

Issues (i) & (ii):- We perused the relevant documents on record.  The complainant had filed chief affidavit.  But the complainant was not present for cross examination.  Admittedly the complainant had availed two gold loans from the 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs. 79,000/- and Rs. 2,45,000/- n 26.09.2011 and 20.10.2011.  The allegation of the complainant is that due to the financial constraints the complainant could not redeem the pledge.  Further the complainant stated that two notices in respect of both pledge numbers requiring him to redeem the pledge within 14 days of receipt of the notice was received by him on 30.01.2013.  When the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party personally told him that the ornaments were under the control of recovery department who issued the notice and asked him to contact him after a week for redeeming the loan.  The complainant had not produced evidence to show that he had contacted the 1^st opposite party and told him that the ornaments were under the control of recovery department.  The complainant is not turned up for cross examination of opposite parties.  Ext. D2 and D2 (a) is the office copy of the receipts in the name of complainant issued by the opposite parties at the time of availing gold loan.  Ext. D4 and D4(a) are the demand promissory note of two gold loan in the name of complainant stating the terms and conditions of opposite parties.  Ext. D5 is the registered notice sent by the opposite parties to the complainant.  Admittedly the complainant had received the registered notice.  The opposite parties had acted as per the terms and conditions of the gold loan.  The complainant had not produced evidence to prove that he is ready to settle the account. 

From the above discussions we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties.  Complainant failed to prove his case.  Hence the complaint is dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.   No order as to costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 7^th day of November 2019.    

        Sd/-       

P.SUDHIR                              : PRESIDENT

        Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR  : MEMBER

       Sd/-

VIJU V.R                               : MEMBER   

jb

C.C. No. 138/2013

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

NIL

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

D1     - Copy of extracts of the minutes

D2     - Office copy of loan receipt for Rs. 79000/-

D2(a) -  Office copy of loan receipt for Rs. 2,45,000/-

D3     - Acknowledgement card

D4     - Gold loan application for Rs. 79,000/-

D4(a) - Gold loan application for Rs. 2,45,000/-

D5     - Unclaimed registered notice

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb