IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of March, 2017
Filed on 18.11.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.337/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt. Beena Sethunath 1. The Manager, Maben Nidhi Ltd.
W/o Sethunath Muttam Bazar, Cherthala
Kiliyenveli (Plappali)
Muhamma P.O., Cherthala 2. The Chief Executive Officer
(By Adv. E.D. Zacharias) Maben Nidhi Ltd.
A Manappuram Group Enterprises
Registered Office, Building No.
V/429, Near High School Junction
Valappad P.O., Thrissur – 680 567
(By Adv. A. Supriya – for opposite
parties)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant has pledged 305.14 gram sovereign of gold ornaments in the Maben Nidhi Ltd., Cherthala Branch in Gold loan numbers 5913,5915, 5917 on 23.10.2014 and availed gold loan of Rs.6,16,300/-. The complainant visited the first opposite party on 20.4.2015 for remitting the amount towards interest. But the first opposite party did not allow the complainant to remit the amount towards interest and they informed that all the gold ornaments of the complainant were sent to the head office for auction. The opposite parties have not so far issued any intimation or any notice to the complainant before initiating any steps against the realization of amount by way of selling the gold ornaments. The complainant has issued notice on 21.4.2015 to the opposite parties and demanded to get back the entire gold ornaments pledged by the complainant and also intimated to close the loan transaction by way of remitting the entire amount but to utter surprise the 2nd opposite party issued a letter dated 6.5.2015 intimating that they had intimated the facts to the complainant and sold the pledged gold ornaments for Rs.6,97,250/-, but the date of sale was deliberated omitted in the letter dated 6.5.2015. On direct enquiry it was learnt from the 2nd opposite party that the sale of gold ornaments were conducted on 7.4.2015 and the account was closed. The acts of the opposite parties are purse illegal, ill-motivated, bias ultravires and not in good faith. They have no manner of right to conduct sale of gold ornaments without prior notice. Further the opposite parties not to so far, intimated to the complainant when the gold ornaments were sold. They have malafide object to grab the gold ornaments of the complainant by dubious methods. The alleged proceedings are abinitio void and legally not sustainable. The complainant has emotional attachment to the gold ornaments and the alleged secret sale caused irreparable injury to the complainant. At the time of loan transaction the value of one gram of gold ornament was Rs.3,125/- and the value of gold ornaments was Rs.9,53,562/-. In fact the opposite parties have converted the gold ornaments of the complainant as their property by way of cheating. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The loan which was availed on 23.10.2014 for a period of 90 days was under the GL-MX Scheme. The complainant never cared to repay the loan amount even after a year. Hence the opposite parties were constrained to sent the pledged articles for auction. Registered notices were issued to the complainant on 24.01.2015 specifically stating that if the loan amount is not repaid, the gold ornaments pledged will be sold in auction. The complainant never cared to receive the registered notices sent or to pay single rupee towards the loan account. No repayments were made by the complainant and accordingly the ornaments were sent to auction. Subsequently, paper publication was made in vernacular daily ‘mangalam,’ stating default loan accounts, the date time and place of auction. Thus the opposite parties have complied with all the legal formalities before the pledged articles were sent for auction. Hence, it is incorrect to state that the complainant was not issued with any notice before sending the pledged articles for auction. Even though registered notices were issued to the complainant on 24.01.2015 they were never received by the complainant. The complainant never cared to receive the registered notices sent or to pay single rupee towards the loan account. She, being a chronic defaulter, has no right to challenge the auction proceedings or the rate of interest charged. The customer had accepted the loan amount and used it for personal gain and now trying to evade from the repayment of the loan for which she has filed the present case. Subsequently she filed a complaint against the company before the Hon’ble CDRF., Alappuzha. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Two witnesses from the side of the complainant were examined as PW2 and PW3. Opposite party was examined as RW1 and documents produced marked as Exts.B1 to B5.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that complainant has pledged 305.14 grams sovereign of gold ornaments in the Maben Nidhi Ltd., Cherthala Branch in Gold loan numbers 5913, 5915, 5917 on 23.10.2014 and availed gold loan of Rs.6,16,300/-. According to the complainant, when she visited the first opposite party for remitting amount towards interest, they did not allow the complainant to remit the amount towards interest and they informed that all the gold ornaments of the complainant were sent to the head office for auction. They further stated that the opposite parties have not so far issued any information or any notice to the complainant before initiating any steps against the realization of amount by way of selling the gold ornaments. Opposite parties filed version stating that they issued registered notices to the complainant on 24.1.2015 stating that if the loan amount is not repaid the gold ornaments pledged will be sold in auction and the complainant never cared to receive the registered notices sent or to pay single rupee towards the loan amount. Subsequently paper publication was made in magalam daily stating default loss accounts date, time and place of auction. According to the opposite parties they have complied with all the legal formalities before the pledged articles were sent for auction. In order to substantiate their contention, opposite parties produced documents which marked as Ext.B2 series, B3 series and B4 series. According to the complainant, the opposite parties have not so far issued any intimation or any notice to the complainant. While cross examining the complainant she admitted the signature in the acknowledgement card dated 27.2.2015 (Ext.B2 series (c ). According to the complainant after receiving the notice dated 27.2.2015 she along with one Rajesh went to the opposite parties bank and opposite parties extended the time for 2 months,. Rajesh was examined as PW2. Thereafter she had no knowledge about the notices sent by the opposite parties. In order to prove that allegation, the post woman was examined asPW3. While cross examing the PW3, she stated that, “Sn article addressee delivery sN¿p¶ kabw hnem-k-¡mcn Øe-¯p-mbn-cpt¶m? CÃ. Intimation BÀ¡p sImSp-¯p? Letter box- Â C«p.” According to the opposite party, since the letters sent to the complainant returned as unclaimed, they auctioned the gold ornaments. On going through the above discussions, it has come out in evidence that on an earlier occasion 27.2.2015 the notice of default was served on the complainant through registered post and on receiving the same the complainant visited the office of the opposite party along with PW2. According to the complainant she has requested for extension of 2 months time for the payment of the amount. It is before the expiry of that 2months, the notices Exts. B2series( a), B3 series (c ), B4 series (c ) were issued by the opposite party through registered post and it was returned as unclaimed. The opposite party has denied the statement of the complainant that she has given extension of 2 months time by them. Even if the extension of time as claimed by the complainant was given or not the only question for consideration is whether there was proper service of notice to the complainant before conducting the gold auction. The notices given by the opposite party through registered with acknowledgement due which are seen returned with postal endorsement as ‘unclaimed’ are marked as Exts. B2series( a), B3 series (c ), B4 series (c ). In order to prove the service of notice, PW3 the post-woman was examined. She has admitted the endorsement contained in the postal envelop. In the postal envelop it is written as ‘intimation, Absent.’ It is also written in Red ink as ‘unclaimed.’ During the course of examination, PW3 deposed that the complainant was absent and intimation was dropped in the box. There is no case for PW3 she has given intimation to any other member of the family or any other person. It is an admitted fact that the complainant was out of station and staying at Kannur where she is employed. In this circumstances stated above, this Forum finds that there is no proper notice to the complainant. The dropping of intimation in the letter box cannot be treated as intimation which reaches in the hands of the complainant. So the auction conducted is without notice and is illegal in the eye of law. The auction statement produced by the opposite party is marked as Ext.B5. On verifying Ext.B5 we came to see that the value of the gold at the time of auction is not stated and also the proceedings followed in auction not stated. In Ext.A4 the letter issued by the complainant to the General Manager, she stated that she had to get Rs.84,756/- towards balance amount after the auction. Opposite parties have not raised any objection in marking said document.
In the result, complaint is allowed granting following reliefs:-
- The opposite parties are directed to return the gold ornaments after clearing the due amount in the alternative the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.84,756/- (Rupees eight four thousand seven hundred and fifty six only) to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant.
- The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me an pronounced
in open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2017.
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Beena Sethunath (Witness)
PW2 - Rajesh P.R. (Witness)
PW3 - Ambika O.P. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Gold pledging receipt dated 23.10.14 in loan No.913
Ext.A2 - Gold pledging receipt dated 23.10.14 in loan No.915
Ext.A3 - Gold pledging receipt dated 23.10.14 in loan No.917
Ext.A4 - True copy of application dated 21.04.2015
Ext.A5 - Letter dated 6.5.2015
Ext.A6 - Registered notice with postal receipt
Ext.A7 - Customer advice
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Tomson. A. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Authorization letter
Ext.B2 series (a) to (e)- Pledging receipt in loan No.5915 and 4 documents
Ext.B3 series (a) to (e)- Pledging receipt in loan No.5917 and 4 documents
Ext.B4 series (a) to (e)- Pledging receipt in loan No.5913 and 4 documents
Ext.B5 - Auction statement
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
