Date of Filing:23.01.2019

Date of Disposal:30.03.2022  

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 30^th March 2022

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT

Mr. KRISHNAMURTHY B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs. DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER

APPEAL No.135/2019

1. M/s Manappuram Finanace Ltd.,

Head office,

Manappuram House,

IV470(old), W638A(New), Valapad,

Trissur, Kerala-680567.

Rep. by Prasad Kishore.

2. The Branch Manager,

Manappuram Finance Ltd.,

No.78/1, 76/5, 1^st Floor,

TST Circle, Hiriyur,

Chitradurga Dist.

Rep. by its Authorised Representative

Prasada Kishore.                                                          ..........Appellant

(By Mr. Ravishankar T.P., Adv.)                                           

                                                 -Versus-

Smt. Manjakka N,

Aged about 25 years,

W/o Veeresh L.,

R/a Kandikere Village,

Yaraballi Post,

Hiriyur Tq.

Chitradurga Dist.                                         ………..Respondent

-:ORDER:-

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH: PRESIDENT

1. This Appeal is filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 aggrieved by the Order dated 30.05.2018 passed in CC/80/2017 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chitradurga (for short District Forum).

2. The Commission heard and examined the impugned order passed by District Forum.

3.  The Brief facts are: Complainant has availed gold loan under Swarna Shakti Scheme from OP2 by pledging 08 items of gold ornaments on different dates. As per the instruction of OPs, the complainant has paid interest without fail. By the time complainant is ready to redeem the gold ornaments pledged by her by paying the principal amount along with interest, the office bearers of the OP2 sold the pledged ornaments in public auction.  This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OPs and professed the present complaint. In spite of service of notice, OP1 did not appear before District Forum and hence placed exparte. OP2 appeared through learned counsel and contested the matter.  OP2 contended that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions and committed default in payment of loan and non-redemption of the gold. Further contented that OP has issued notice to the complainant on 01.02.2017 and 01.03.2017 stating that OP2 has fixed the date of auction for selling the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant. The same was published in the Samyuktha Karnataka Kannada Daily Newspaper.  After following the procedure, the gold has been sold in a public auction and after selling the gold ornaments; the OP2 has followed the procedure as contemplated under the Swarna Shakti Scheme. Thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.  After enquiry, the Forum below recorded findings in favour of the complainant and directed OP1 and 2 to return gold ornaments pledged by the complainant pertaining to loan account No.0117070700024497, 0117070700024498 and 0117070700025674 by receiving the loan amount within 30 days from the date of the order, if fails to return the same, the OPs are directed to return the value of the above items of gold along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of pledging the gold ornaments till realization. Further directed OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and cost of the proceedings respectively to the complainant.

4. Aggrieved by the said Order, Appellants/OPs preferred this appeal, on the grounds that, the impugned order is contrary to law and facts, liable to be set aside.

5. Commission heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants/OPs and perused the impugned order passed by Forum below in CC/80/2017, dated 30.05.2018. Now Commission has to decide whether impugned order passed by the Forum below is contrary to the facts and law as appealed? 

6. Learned counsel for appellants/OPs contented that the Forum below has failed to consider the material evidence on record. Further contended that the complainant/respondent is the chronic defaulter in making payment within the stipulated time.  Also the Forum below has erred in holding, without any proper reasoning that there is deficiency in service by the appellant with respect to the three loan account.  The reasons assigned by the appellants/Ops cannot be accepted, because, District Forum has rightly answered by recording sound reasons and observing that, the documents produced by OP2/appellant no.2 and complainant/respondent clearly shows that OP2/appellant no.2 has followed the procedure to sell the five items of gold ornaments but failed to follow the procedure in selling the three items of pledged gold ornaments in a public auction.  Further observed that OP2/appellant no.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the Swarna Shakti Scheme in selling the three items of pledged gold ornaments.  With regard to payment of interest, though complainant has not paid the entire gold loan to the OP2/appellant no.2 to redeem the gold ornaments, he has paid interest regularly. In such circumstances, we do not find any error/omission in the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  Accordingly, we proceed to dismiss the appeal with no order as to cost.

7. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeals.

Lady Member                    Judicial Member                    President

*GGH*