Karnataka

Chamrajnagar

CC/87/2012

Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manappuram Finance Ltd., and another - Opp.Party(s)

MR.A.D.S.

06 Feb 2013

ORDER

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service by the O.P.

 

1.  The complainant’s case in brief are that on 19/07/2010 he pledged gold ornaments by borrowing Rs.65,000/- from the O.P.

 

1.  The complainant requested the O.P. to redeem the gold ornaments by taking principle amount as well as  interest to which the O.P. has not complied.

 

1.  The complainant on 05/12/2011 gave a letter to the O.P. requesting them to return the pledged ornaments  by taking principle amount as well as interest. The O.P. did not do so as requested and therefore the complainant sent a notice on 09/12/2011 to the O.P. Even after the notice the O.P. has not returned the gold ornaments and not allowed the complainant to pay the principle amount along with interest.

 

1.  The O.P. has admitted  about pledge of gold ornaments by the complainant by borrowing Rs.65,000/-. It has denied all the other allegations made by the complainant against it.

 

1.  It has stated that the complainant pledged gold ornaments weighing 46.9grams on 19/07/2010 by borrowing Rs.65,000/- under S-4 scheme. The pawn ticket was issued to the complainant mentioning date of advance, duration of loan, rate of interest and other particulars. The complainant was to repay the loan within one year from the date of borrowing of loan amount. The complainant  was to pay the principle and interest  on or before  17/08/2011. The complainant  has not paid any amount and interest for the  amount borrowed by him. The O.P. reminded personally as well as by phone to the pay the interest as well as principle amount. 

 

1.  The O.P. sent a auction intimation letter through registered post to the complainant which he has received on 13/09/2011. Even after the receipt of the said notice the complainant has not come forward to release the articles by paying principle amount along with interest due.

 

1.  After the O.P. complied  the legal  formalities  sold gold ornaments as per terms and conditions of the loan. The O.P. intimated the complainant  to receive surplus  amount of Rs.15,574/-. The complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the pawn ticket.

 

1.  The following points arises for consideration.
   1. Whether the complainant has shown the deficiency of service by the O.Ps.?
   2. To what order the parties are entitled?

 

1. The findings for the above points are that

     Point No.1:Negative

    Point No.2:Does not arise.

 

REASONS

1. POINT NO.1:- The admitted facts are that  on 19/07/20120   the complainant pledged 46.9grams of gold ornaments by borrowing Rs.65,000/- under S-4 scheme. The Pawn ticket was given by the O.P. to the complainant.

 

1.  The complainant says that he requested the O.P. to receive principle amount as well as interest and redeem the gold ornaments, to which the O.P. did not  do so and therefore he was compelled and sent a letter  on 05/12/2011 to which the O.P. did not comply.  The complainant finally  sent legal notice on 09/12/2011 requesting the O.P. to receive the principle amount along with interest  to redeem the gold ornaments, to which also the O.P. did  not comply  and therefore there is deficiency of service by the O.P.

 

1.  The O.P. on the otherhand  has stated that there is no deficiency of service by it. The complainant has to redeem the gold ornaments by paying principle as well as interest on or before 17/08/2010. As the complainant did not do so an auction intimation letter was sent through registered post to the complainant on 13/09/2011 and even after the said notice the complainant did not paid the principle amount nor interest in order to redeem the gold ornaments and therefore the O.P. sold the gold ornaments  in the public auction  and sent a intimation to the complainant to receive Rs.15,574/- being the surplus amount. 

 

1.  In order to understand whether there is deficiency of service or not the terms and conditions of the pawn ticket has to be seen and whether the complainant was prepared to pay the principle amount along with interest within stipulated period and O.P. had refused to redeem the gold ornaments by taking principle amount as well as interest within the stipulated period.

 

1.  The jewels were pledged by taking loan on 19/07/2010 and as per terms and conditions of the agreement or pawn ticket the complainant was redeem the gold ornaments within twelve months from the date of pledge by repaying entire amount.

 

1.  In the present case admittedly  the complainant has not paid either interest or any amount towards the  entire principle amount or part of the principle amount. The complainant himself has written a letter on 05/12/2011 to the O.P. by stating as follows:

“CqÀ«lÖ a£ÀߪÀ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄ §UÉÎ:

ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ  ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ  J¸ï.PÀĪÀiÁgï JA§ £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB19/07/2010gÀAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ±ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è gÀÆ.65,000-00UÀ½UÉ a£ÀߪÀ£ÀÄß CqÀ«nÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. §rØAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀzÀ PÁgÀt CqÀ«lÖ a£ÀߪÀ£ÀÄß ºÀgÁfUÉAzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj £ÀªÀÄUÉ a£ÀߪÀÅ ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ zÀAiÀĪÀiÁr CqÀ«lÖ a£ÀßzÀ ªÉƧ®UÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀB10/12/2011gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÁªÀw¹ £À£Àß a£ÀߪÀ£ÀÄß ©r¹PÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãɔ

 

1. It becomes clear from the above that  the complainant was aware that his gold ornaments were put to   auction for non-payment of interest as well as principle amount and requested to give time till 10/12/2011. In view of this  arguments of the learned counsel  that no notice had been received by the complainant about auction cannot be accepted. Even otherwise the documents produced by the O.P. shows that notice has been sent to the complainant saying that auction would takeplace for non-payment of principle amount as well as interest.

 

1.  The O.P. has auctioned the gold ornaments on 05/12/2011 for Rs.1,11,538/- and out of the said amount Rs.93,817 has been adjusted  towards loan as well as interest. The O.P. under law was entitled to sell gold ornaments  in auction  for non-payment of principle or interest within 12 months from the date of pledge.  The auction conducted by the O.P. cannot be termed as deficiency of service by them.

 

1.  The letter has been written by the complainant on 05/12/2011 to O.P. The complainant does not say that he has personally delivered  to the O.P. and in view of this letter sent to O.P. must have been received after the auction. The auction  has conducted on 05/12/2011 and the letter by the complainant was been written on 05/12/2011 asking them to give time till 10/12/2011 for payment of entire amount with interest. The complainant has not placed material to show the letter has been received by the O.P. before the auction and nor it is the case of the complainant that inspite of receipt of letter no time was granted to him for payment of loan. Even otherwise of the  letter has been written to the O.P. prior to the auction  still the O.P. has right under law to auction the ornaments. The period of 12 months has expired on 19/07/2011. The auction  has been held three months after this, considering this also it cannot be said there is deficiency of service as stated by the complainant.

 

1.  The complainant in the written arguments at para-10 has stated that auction has not been conducted  properly by the O.P. by not publishing in the newspapers and there by  auction has not fair and it has not fetched correct amount.  This has not been taken by the complainant in the complaint filed by him  and there is no grounds to show that there was deficiency of service by the O.P.  In view of this  arguments of the complainant of this aspect  cannot be accepted.

 

1.  It can be said from the about that there is no deficiency of service by the O.P. Hence, Point No.1 is held in the negative.

 

1.  POINT No.2: In view of holding point No.1in the negative, point no.2 does not arise.

 

1.  In view of the above following

 

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.

The parties are directed to bear their own costs.