BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.200/16.
Date of instt.: 11.07.2016.
Date of Decision: 17.04.2017.
Rachit S/o Sh. Anil Singhal, r/o Joshian Mohalla, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Manappuram Finance Limited, Kaithal Branch, through its Branch Manager.
- Manappuram House, Head Office, Valapad, Thrissur, District Kerla India Pin-680567.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. M.K.Nirwani, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Subhash Mehla, Advocate for the Op No.1. (Though exparte).
Op No.2 exparte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he took the loan of Rs.99,990/- against 100 Gm. Gold set from the Op No.1 on 25.08.2014. It is alleged that he paid Rs.8602/- as interest in the office of Op No.1 on 12.05.2015. It is further alleged that the complainant continuously contacted with the Op No.1 and requested to receive the loan amount from the complainant but the Op No.1 prolonged the matter without any reason and ultimately, the complainant lodged a complaint to Op No.2 on toll free number vide complaint No.19999171245633 on 17.12.2015. It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops to release the gold of 100 gm. to complainant after taking the loan amount but the Ops refused to return the gold set of complainant inspite of several requests. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, initially the opposite parties appeared before this forum and after filing reply, they did not appear on 11.01.2017 and were proceeded against exparte on 11.01.2017. Ops No.1 & 2 filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the complaint is barred under Section 5 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 as there is an Arbitration Clause in the Pawan Ticket issued to the complainant; that the Clause No.21 of Pawn Ticket clearly mentioned that in case of any dispute, the matter shall be referred to Arbitration. The Arbitrator shall be appointed by the company and his decision shall be final and binding upon the parties; that on the basis of above-said Arbitration Clause, the complaint is barred and the matter is referable to Arbitrator as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and closed evidence on 18.11.2016.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and Op No.1 and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant took the loan of Rs.99,990/- against 100 Gm. Gold set from the Op No.1 on 25.08.2014. He further argued that the complainant paid Rs.8602/- as interest in the office of Op No.1 on 12.05.2015. He further argued that the complainant continuously contacted with the Op No.1 and requested to receive the loan amount from the complainant but the Op No.1 prolonged the matter without any reason and ultimately, the complainant lodged a complaint to Op No.2 on toll free number vide complaint No.19999171245633 on 17.12.2015. He further argued that the complainant requested the Ops to release the gold of 100 gm. to complainant after taking the loan amount but the Ops refused to return the gold set of complainant inspite of several requests. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 argued that the complainant had taken gold loan of Rs.99,990/- on 25.08.2014 by pledging 99.20 gms. Gold which includes stone weight 30.50 gms. He further argued that the complainant paid Rs.8602/- on 12.05.2015 which was interest upto 07.01.2015. He further argued that all the relevant details of loan were clearly mentioned in the Pawn Ticket as-well-as terms and conditions and the same had been issued to the complainant at the time of availing the loan. He further argued that the complainant had to redeem the pledged gold by paying the entire loan amount alongwith interest on or before 21.05.2015 as it was the date of maturity but the complainant has not paid even the interest after 07.01.2015 what to talk about the loan amount. He further argued that the Ops had sent the auction intimation letter to the complainant on 23.05.2015 which was delivered to the complainant on 29.05.2015, which is confirmed by the Department of Posts, Chennai. He further argued that the gold ornaments in question were auctioned on 17.09.2015 for an amount of Rs.1,16,767/- at a sale price of Rs.2260.48 paise per gram and the total due amount was Rs.1,21,072/- against the complainant and the Ops have suffered a loss of Rs.4305/-. He further argued that the complainant has knowledge about the entire facts but knowingly he made the complaint on toll free number on 17.12.2015 as the auction has already been taken place on 17.09.2015.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is admitted by the parties that the complainant had taken gold loan of Rs.99,990/- on 25.08.2014 by pledging 99.20 gms. Gold ornaments and the complainant had paid Rs.8602/- on 12.05.2015 as interest upto 07.01.2015. It is also admitted by the complainant that he made the complaint to Op No.2 on toll free number on 17.12.2015 but as replied by the Ops that the auction of the ornaments has already been taken place on 17.09.2015. It is pertinent to mention here that after availing many opportunities for evidence, the Ops have not produced any evidence inspite of the condition that if they failed to produce evidence, their evidence shall deem to be closed by court order and inspite of said order, the Ops choose to be proceeded against exparte. It is further pertinent to mention here that lateron, the Op No.1 has joined the proceedings and submitted written arguments alongwith photo-copies of some documents. No doubt, the Ops have not tendered any document in their evidence but the complainant has to prove its case by cogent evidence. The complainant has not produced any document except his affidavit. No doubt, the complainant has attached with the complaint a loan receipt and a photo-copy of another document, which is not readable and the same has not been tendered in evidence by the complainant. From loan receipt, it is clear that the maturity date was 21.05.2015. According to the complainant himself, he paid the interest of Rs.8602/- on 12.05.2015 which clearly indicates that the complainant was not regular in paying the interest. The complainant has not produced any such document from which it can be said that the complainant has asked the Ops to get their entire loan amount and released the gold ornaments. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations raised in the complaint by cogent evidence.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.17.04.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
