NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4298/2009

MUTHOOT FINANCE PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.S. VIJAYAN - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. PRIMUS LAW ASSOCIATES

08 Apr 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4298 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 23/03/2009 in Appeal No. 113/2009 of the State Commission Kerala)
1. MUTHOOT FINANCE PVT. LTD.The Manager Muthoot Finance Private Ltd. Thodupuzha P.O. Idukki Distt. Kerala ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. K.S. VIJAYANKanattu House Mundanmudi P.O. Vannappuram Idukki DisttKerala ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 08 Apr 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner. No one responded on call for respondent. Notice issued by Registry has been received back undelivered, the same having not been claimed by respondent. Service of notice in this back drop is presumed to be valid. Facts in brief are that respondent pledging gold ornaments with petitioner Finance Company had secured loan for Rs. 15,000/- on interest @ 15% p.a. for first three months followed by 2% penal interest too in case of default. When respondent approached petitioner Finance Co. for redemption of pledged ornaments, it charged interest @ 28% p.a. Respondent left with no option, paid Rs. 17,814/-. In a consumer complaint that was filed by respondent, defence of petitioner – Finance Company to defeat claim of respondent was that relation of petitioner and respondent was that of Creditor and Debtor. Learned counsel for petitioner would draw my attention to the terms and conditions of agreement executed between the parties which too does not authorize petitioner Company to charge interest @ 28% p.a. as it contains the clause that additional risk interest would vary according to the value of item pledged. Defence of respondent even before fora below had been that even additional risk interest was not payable by him, there being no decline in the value of gold in the market. Both fora below have negated contentions raised on behalf of Finance company directing them to refund Rs. 1,188/- which was realized in excess from respondent along-with compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. There being no infirmity with concurrent finding of fora below, order of State Commission is affirmed and revision petition resultantly, is dismissed but with no order as to cost.


......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER