| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1469-2014 DATED ON THIS THE 2nd January 2016 Present: 1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT 2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi B.Sc., LLB., - MEMBER 3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C. B.E., LLB., - MEMBER COMPLAINANT/S | | : | Sajid Alib.B.E., S/o Mohammad Iqbal, No.LIG 7, 1st Stage, Rajivnagar, Mysore-9. (Sri Vivek.M.S, Adv.) | | | | | | V/S | OPPOSITE PARTY/S | | : | - The Manager, Manappuram Finance Limited, 1st Floor, Sivaji Main Road, N.R.Mohalla, Mysore-570007.
- The Manager, Manappuram Finance Limited, Manappuram House, Valapad, Thrissur, Kerala-680567.
(Sri S.Shivanna, Adv.) | | | | | | |
Nature of complaint | : | Deficiency in service | Date of filing of complaint | : | 08.09.2014 | Date of Issue notice | : | 19.09.2014 | Date of order | : | 02.01.2016 | Duration of Proceeding | : | 1 YEAR 3 MONTHS 22 DAYS |
Sri Devakumar.M.C. Member - The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, against the opposite parties, seeking a direction to return the golden ornaments worth `80,000/-pledged and to award damages and other reliefs.
- The complainant availed loan of `49,000/-on 30.08.2012, by pledging golden ornaments, weighing about 32 grams. The loan period was for 1 year. Upon failure to pay principle and interest, the opposite party auctioned the golden ornaments. The complainant alleged that the ornaments were auctioned without giving any notice, as per the terms and conditions. As such, filed this complaint for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, sought the reliefs.
- The opposite party though appeared through its counsel, failed to defend the allegations by filing its version and affidavits.
- The complainant lead his evidence to prove the facts, by filing affidavit and several documents placed on board. On perusal of the material, the matter posted for orders.
- The points arose for our consideration are:-
- Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
- What order?
- Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 :- In the negative. Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following :: R E A S O N S :: - Point No.1:- The complainant pledged his golden ornaments with opposite party, weighing about 32 grams and borrowed a sum of `49,000/- on 30.08.2012 at 24% interest. The loan period was one year. The complainant was irregular in repayment of the amount. Based on the terms and conditions, the opposite party auctioned the golden ornaments to recover the dues to it. The complainant alleged that, he has not received any notice from the opposite party, regarding the sale of golden ornaments by auction, as per the terms and conditions.
- The opposite party contended in its reply notice that it has informed the complainant that, in case of failure to settle the dues, the golden ornaments would be auctioned as per the terms and conditions, in order to realise the amount due to the company and the said notice was received by complainant on 24.07.2013, thereby the complainant deposited a sum of `3,038/- on 24.07.2013 and the same was adjusted towards the interest due upto 06.03.2013. Later the complainant failed to settle the dues. As such the opposite party displayed the list of defaulter in its notice board and the notice of auction of the pledged ornaments was published in Vijaya Karnataka and Deccan Chronicle Daily newspaper dated 15.10.2013, since there was no response from the complainant, the opposite party constrained to sell the ornaments in auction after complying the legal formalities. However, the golden ornaments auctioned on 11.11.2013 for `57,098/- and after adjusting the same towards the outstanding due amount of `58,727/-, an amount of `1,629/- is pending as sale loss. So the complainant is liable to pay the sale loss amount along with accrued interest thereon.
- Statement of Account, placed on board by the complainant clearly shows the payment made by the complainant towards clearing the loan amount. Further, as per the terms and conditions enumerated in the loan statement, the loan term was one year only and the borrower should repay the entire loan amount along with interest and other charges. The urgent notice dated 19.06.2013, issued to the complainant by the opposite party goes to show that the complainant was well informed about the auction of the ornaments. Further, the reply notice dated 25.08.2014 also confirms the notice of the auction of the pledged ornaments in two daily news papers dated 15.10.2013. As such, the defence taken by the complainant relating to non-issuance of the notice, is not acceptable. As such, the action taken by the opposite party is not unlawful. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the negative.
- Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following
:: O R D E R :: - The complaint is hereby dismissed.
- Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 2nd January 2016) (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) PRESIDENT (M.V.BHARATHI) (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.) MEMBER MEMBER | |
