IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of August, 2017
Filed on 12.04.2016
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.138/2016
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Smt. Jyothi Ajimon Muthoot Finance Ltd.
Puthenparambilchira Ramankary, Alappuzha
Mampuzhakkari, Ramankary P.O. (By Adv. A. Supriya)
Alappuzha - 689 595
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in a nutshell is as follows:-
The complainant on 1st August, 2014 availed a oan amount of Rs.15,000/- from the opposite party on pledging gold bangle of one soverign with the oppsoite party. Thereafter the complainant on 5th October, 2015 remitted an amount of Rs.3,350/- towards interest of the aforesaid loan, and the loan was renewed. On 7th April, 2016 approached the opposite party to pay off the loan amount and to redeem the pledged ornament. To the shock of the complainant she was told that her ornament had been sold out in auction. When the complainant made queries as to this she was told that the gold article was so sold for the period of pledge was expired. The opposite party claimed that they had sent registered notice to the complainant, bhut complainant had never received any such one. The complainant is entitled to get back her gold ornament. The opposite party inflicted inestimable mental agony and humiliation to the complainant. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notice being served the opposite party turned up and filed objection. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant on 1st August, 2014 pledged a gold article weighing 7.700 grams. and availed an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the opposite party. As per the particular scheme, the complainant was obliged to redeem the mortgage before 31st August, 2015. However the complainant was not remitting the loan amount promptly and properly. With the result, the complainant was issued notices on four different occasions. Thereafter on 17th February, 2016 the opposite party issued a registered notice to the complainant with A/d, and the opposite party received the A/d card suggesting the receipt of the said notice by the complainant. It was thereafter that the opposite party proceeded auction proceedings, and sold out the complainant's gold ornaments. The balance sale consideration after satisfying the complainant's debt with the opposite party, was paid to the complainant vide a cheque. In this context, the complaint is seemingly frivolous and the same is to be dismissed with cost, he opposite party contends.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW1, and documents Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, the Manager of the opposite party was examined as RW1 and the documents Exts.B1 to B3 were marked.
4. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties, the issues that crop up before us for consideration are:-
1) Whether the opposite party committed deficiency in service?
2) Whether the opposite party is liable to give back the gold ornament to the complainant?
5. The complainants’ specific case is that the complainant on 1st August, 2014 availd a loan amount of Rs.15,000/- from the opposite party on pledging gold bangle of one sovereign with the opposite party. Thereafter the complainant on 5th October, 2015 remitted an amount of Rs.3,350/- towards interest of the aforesaid loan, and the loan was renewed. 7th April, 2016 approached the opposite party to pay off the loan amount and to redeem the pledged ornament. To the shock of the complainant she was told that her ornament had been sold out in auction. When the complainant made queries as to this she was told that the gold article was so sold for the period of pledge was expired. The opposite party claimed that they had sent registered notice to the complainant, but complainant had never received any such one. The complainant is entitled to get back her gold ornament. The opposite party would contend that the complainant was not remiting the loan amount promptly and properly. With the result, the complainant was issued notices on four different occasions. Thereafter, on 17th February, 2016 the opposite party issued a registered notice to the complainant with A/d, and the opposite party received the A/d card suggesting the receipt o fthe said notice by the complainant. It was thereafter that the opposite party poceeded auction proceedings, and sold out the complainant's gold ornaments. The balance sale consideration after satisfying the complainant's debt with the opposite party, was paid to the complainant vide a cheque. Bearing in mind the contentions alive in our mind, we anxiously perused the available materials placed on record by both the parties. The Ext.A1 evidently evinces that the complainant had renewed the pledge on 5th October, 2015 on remitting an amount of Rs.3,350/- towards interest of the aforesaid loan. During cross examination, the complainant asserted that she didn't receive any letters from the opposite party. However, the opposite party has not done anything toprove that they had duly sent the registered notie to the complainant. Thus viewing from different perspective, it does appear that the opposite party is liable to give back the interest. We are of the considered view that the opposite party has merably failed to dispove the complainant's otherwise trustworthy contenttion that the opposite party has allegedly sold out her ornaments without complying with the required proceedings. As has ben observed supra, the case put forth by the complainant seems inevitably probable, and worthy of acceptance. Needless to say the complainant is entitled to relief.
In the result complaint allowed. The opposite party is directed either to give back the complainant's ornament in the event of the complainant remitting the loan amount with interest as on 7th April, 2016 on which date of the complainant approached the opposite party to payoff theloan amountand to redeem the pledged ornament. If the complainant's gold ornament is not available with the opposite party, the opposite party shall give back the balance amount with 9% interest till realization of the said amount namely excluding the loan amount the complainant due to the opposite party on calculating the cost of the ornament in line iwth the market price of gold at the relevant time. The opposite party is further directed to pat to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service the opposite party committed. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of August, 2017.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) : .
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Jyothi Ajimon (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Leaflet
Ext.A2 - Customer copy of loan agreement
Ext.A3 - Copy of the auction notice
Ext.A4series- Notice dated 15.7.2017, Original Cheque dated 19.7.16
& Cover
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Soumya V.S. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Pawn receipt
Ext.B2 - Postal receipt and acknowledgement card
Ext.B3 - Copy of registered notice
// True Copy //
.By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
