BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.149-2019

DATED ON THIS THE 20^th September 2022

      Present:   1) Sri. B.Narayanappa

M.A., LL.B., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Smt.Lalitha.M.K.,

M.A., B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER  

                        3) Sri Maruthi Vaddar,

                                                B.A., LLB (Special)  - MEMBER

Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

PRESIDENT

1.       The complainant Smt.D.H.Lalitha, resident of Mysuru has filed this complaint against the OP – Manappuram Finance Limited, Mysuru, praying to direct the OP to hand over the pledged gold ornaments to the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and such other reliefs as this Commission deems fit to grant.     
2.       The brief facts are that:-

On 30.09.2016 the complainant barrowed a loan of Rs.3,72,500/- from OP by pledging gold ornaments weighing about 181.800 grams.The pledged gold ornaments are as follows:-

1. Necklase – 1SF, LKT, Chain-1, Drops and Studs 4 SF.
2. Necklase – 1SF, Chain-1, Finger Rings – 2 SF
3. Broad bangles – 4 SF, inside plastic.

The rate of interest is at 24% p.a. and she was liable to pay over due interest at 3% p.a. The condition No.4 reads thus:-

          “The borrower shall pay interest at the rate of specified in the Pawn Ticket and incidental charges as applicable to the loan.When interest is not paid at monthly intervals, the interest shall be compounded on a monthly basis.Interest will be calculated on the basis of 360 days a year on the amount outstanding.If the loan is not repaid on demand within the loan tenure, as specified in the pawn ticket, the Company shall have the right to levy overdue interest at 3% p.a. after expiry of the loan tenure, as specified in the pawn ticket on the amount of loan plus interest in default.Interest will be payable from the date of the loan till the account is closed.”

On 15.03.2017 the complainant visited the OP to pay Rs.23,000/- but, OP refused to receive the said amount stating that the complainant is overdue in a sum of Rs.43,000/-.Therefore, on 25.03.2017 the complainant arranged to pay entire amount and visited the OP, but the OP refused to receive the amount contending that the pledged gold ornaments are already sold on 17.03.2017.The complainant was shocked to hear the said news from OP and she was not aware if selling of pledged gold ornaments by OP.Further contended that on 17.03.2017 the complainant came to know that the OP had not conducted any public action to sell the pledged gold ornaments and thereby the OP mis-represented the complainant.Therefore, it is alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP.Hence, this complaint.

3.       After institution of this complaint, notice was ordered to be issued to OP.  In response to notice, OP appeared before this Commission, but not filed version within the stipulated period of 45 days.  After lapse of 45 days, the OP came with an application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file version and also filed version.  But, the complainant opposed the I.A. filed by OP and hence, the I.A. filed by OP was came to be dismissed vide orders of this Commission dated 05.03.2021 and thereby rejected the version of OP.  Therefore, it is crystal clear that the OP has no defence on its part.  However, the OP has filed written arguments.         
4.        The complainant has filed affidavit on behalf of complainant by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3.       
5.      Heard the arguments of complainant’s counsel.  OP and its counsel does not turned up and not addressed the oral arguments, but has filed written arguments. 
6.        The points that would arise for our consideration are as under

1. Whether the complainant proves that the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thereby she is entitled to the reliefs as sought for?
2.  What order?

7.       Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

      Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative

      Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.          Point No.1:- It is the case of the complainant that on 30.09.2016 she borrowed a loan of Rs.3,72,500/- from OP by pledging gold ornaments weighting about 181.800 grams worth of Rs.7,50,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. and over due interest at 3% p.a. and it is further case of the complainant that on 15.03.2017 she went to OP to pay Rs.23,000/-, but OP refused to receive the said amount  by stating that the complainant is over due in a sum of Rs.43,000/-.  Therefore, the complainant decided to close the loan account and arranged money and went to OP on 25.03.2017 to clear the loan account.  But, OP refused to receive the money and stated that on 17.03.2017 itself, the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant were sold in public auction.  It is further specific contention of the complainant that she had not received any auction notice from the OP, it is the bounden duty of the OP to issue auction notice to the complainant before auctioning the pledged gold ornaments.  Therefore, it is contended that as per the knowledge of the complainant on 17.03.2017, the OP had not auctioned pledged gold ornaments and thereby misleaded and misrepresented the complainant.  Therefore, it is alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP.  The OP in its written arguments as admitted that on 30.09.2016 the complainant pledged her gold ornaments with OP and borrowed loan and it is further stated that the loan was for a period of three months.  After explaining all the terms and conditions of the loan by the OP, the complainant signed on the terms and conditions of the OP and borrowed loan, but she did not pay the interest within the stipulated period in spite of demand notice issued by the OP to complainant to pay the interest and if she had desires to renew the loan account.  She could have done so, but not renewed the loan account. Therefore, it is contended that the complainant did not come forward to pay the interest and to renew the loan account or to close the loan account by paying entire loan amount, therefore the OP by issuing auction notice to complainant sold the pledged gold ornaments of the complainant in public auction and adjusted the sale proceeds towards loan account and further contended that the complainant herself is liable to pay the loss caused to the OP.  In this regard, the Op will take suitable action at appropriate time.
9. Though the OP has contended that the complainant availed gold loan for a period of three months and she did not pay the interest nor closed the loan account by paying entire loan amount nor renewed the loan account.  Therefore, by issuing auction notice to the complainant, the OP sold the pledged gold ornaments in a public auction and adjusted the sale proceeds towards loan account of the complainant.  But, in order to substantiate the aforesaid contention taken by the OP, the OP has not at all produced any materials on record such as the auction notice issued to complainant before auctioning the pledged gold ornaments of complainant and it is the specific contention of the complainant that on 15.03.2017 the complainant went to OP to pay Rs.23,000/-, but OP refused to receive the said amount stating that the complainant is over due in a sum of Rs.43,000/- and further it is the specific contention of the complainant that she decided to close the loan account and arranged the money and went to OP on 25.03.2017 to clear the loan account, but the OP refused to receive the amount from the complainant to close the loan account.  But, stated that on 17.03.2017 itself, the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant were sold in public auction.  But, according to the information received by the complainant on 17.03.2017 the OP had not auctioned the pledged gold ornaments in public auction and not sold the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant in public auction.  If at all, the OP had sold the pledged gold ornaments on 17.03.2017 itself, it could have produced auction notice dated 17.03.2017 and auction process conducted by the OP in selling the pledged gold ornaments of complainant in public auction.  But, the OP has not produced the said material documents before this Commission in order to prove its aforesaid stand taken by it that on 17.03.2017 itself the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant were sold in public auction.  Therefore, the contention of the OP that on 17.03.2017 itself the gold ornaments pledged by complainant were sold in public auction is remained as a mere contention without any proof.  Therefore, we are of the considered view that OP has failed to prove that on 17.03.2017 the gold ornaments pledged were sold in public auction.
10. The non-receipt of amount towards closure of loan account from the complainant by the OP when the complainant visited OP on 25.03.2017 itself is nothing but, deficiency in service on its part and in view of the OP has failed to prove that it has sold the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant on 17.03.2017, it is the bounden duty of the OP to hand over the pledged gold ornaments to the complainant by receiving entire loan amount with interest and over due interest thereon from the complainant. Hence, we answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative.
11.       Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to return the pledged gold ornaments to complainant by receiving entire loan amount with accrued interest and over due interest thereon from the complainant within 2 months from the date of this order, failing which the OP shall pay penalty of Rs.25/- per day till return of pledged gold ornaments to complainant. 
3. Further, opposite party is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency in service caused to complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation within 2 months from the date of this order, failing which compensation of Rs.10,000/- + cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- = 15,000/- shall carry interest at 10% p.a till payment.
4. The complainant is at liberty to take action against the opposite party under Section 72 of the C.P.Act, 2019 for non-compliance of this order.
5. Furnish the copy of order to both parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 20^th September, 2022)