BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 381/2011 Filed on 09.12.2011
ORDER DATED: 29.03.2017
Complainant:
K. Ayyappan Achari, Kumara Rajam Nivas, Peroorvilakam, Karumanoor, Parassala.
(By Adv. K.P. Renadive)
Opposite parties:
- Managing Director, Manappuram Group of Companies, Head Office, Valappadu, Thrissur-680 567.
- Branch Manager, Manappuram General Finance & Leasing Ltd., Door No. BP/111, Opp: Syndicate Bank, Balaramapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.
This C.C having been heard on 12.01.2017, the Forum on 29.03.2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. R. SATHI: MEMBER
The case of the complainant is that he availed 3 gold loans from opposite party bank on 20.01.2009 for Rs. 35,700/-, Rs. 41,300/- and Rs. 23,000/-. He paid interest of Rs. 870/-, Rs. 1,005/- and Rs. 564/- for each loan on 17.02.2009. the complainant got registered notice from 2nd opposite party on 27.03.2009 for renewing the said loans after remitting interest. According to the complainant after remitting Rs. 1,383/- towards in addition to Rs. 1,005/- closed loan for 41,300/-. As per the advertisement the complainant has to pay Rs. 1,103/- towards interest for 65 days for the amount of Rs. 41,300/-. But due to mistake in calculation complainant paid Rs. 1,285/- and has closed the account after paying Rs. 43,688/-. The complainant sent notice to the 1st opposite party on 27.03.2009 but 1st opposite party did not give any reply to the same. The matter was also not settled before Neyyattinkara Legal Services Authority. The 2nd opposite party sent registered notice on 03.03.2010 stating that the pledged gold will be sold for auction within 7 days and on 08.03.2010 complainant sent registered notice to opposite party on 08.03.2010 stating that he is ready for releasing the gold. The opposite party received the notice but claimed Rs. 14,773/- towards interest for Rs. 35,700/- loan and Rs. 9,568/- towards interest for Rs. 23,000/- illegally. The complainant made a complaint before Chief Minister’s complaint cell and C.I of Neyyattinkara enquired about the matter and reported that 29.96% interest was calculated for one month and 4% interest was also added in addition to this. The opposite party forcefully made documents showing that the complainant accepted the interest. In reply to the notice sent to the opposite party the opposite party admitted that all the gold pledged were auctioned. This shows the deficiency in service of the opposite party and due to this act of the opposite party caused loss to the complainant. Hence he approached this Forum for allowing the complainant to release loans 03500700703065, 0703500700703066, 0703500700703067 or to direct the opposite parties to give the ornaments having same weight of the pledged gold and to refund the excess interest of Rs. 1,285/- with 29% interest from 26.03.2009 till payment and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant has availed gold loan on 20.01.2009 vide pledge numbers 703065, 703066 and 703067 for a total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The opposite parties dispatched three registered letters for renewal/release of pledge items on 23.03.2009. The complainant released the gold loan vide No. 703066 by paying an amount of Rs. 43,688/- towards the principal and interest. This opposite party sent registered notice dated 25.02.2010 to inform the complainant with respect to the sale of the gold through auction. But averment of reply registered notice dated 08.03.2010 is false. The opposite parties have no knowledge regarding complaint before Chief Minister’s Public Grievance Cell and the enquiries thereafter. The complainant never approached this opposite party for release of the gold loan bearing No. 703065 and 703067 and the statement with regard to the interest is not correct. It is true that these opposite parties received notice from CVC dated 02.08.2010 and 23.12.2010 and opposite parties issued reply notice dated 28.08.2010 and 05.01.2011. The complainant had entered a loan agreement with opposite party and was not ready for releasing the gold as per the terms and conditions. It is submitted that pledged gold is the only security for the loan advanced by the opposite party. So the opposite parties had no other option other than to sell the gold ornaments for realization of the amount due in auction, after complying all legal formalities on 21.05.2010. After adjusting the sale value to the account of the complainant an amount of Rs. 9,673/- is still due to the opposite party as the sale resulted in a loss to the opposite party and opposite party sustained a loss of Rs. 9,673/-. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the side of this opposite party and hence complaint is only to be dismissed.
The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief and marked Exts. P1 to P6. The complainant was examined as PW1. The opposite party filed affidavit in lieu of chief and marked Exts. D1 to D8 and opposite party was examined as DW1.
Issues:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is eligible for any reliefs sought for?
Issues (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that the complainant availed gold loans on 20.01.2009 vide Nos. 703065, 703066 and 703067 for a total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complainant received three registered letters from opposite party and pursuant to the said notice the complainant released the gold loan bearing No. 703066 by paying an amount of Rs. 43,688/-. The above said facts are also admitted by the opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that due to the defective calculation of the opposite party the complainant was forced to pay Rs. 43,688/- instead of Rs. 42,403/- and he attained loss of Rs. 1,285/-. Moreover the complainant was restrained by the opposite party from renewing the other two gold loans. The complainant approached the Mega Adalath organized by the Taluk Legal Services Committee Neyyattinkara and Ext. P3 is the order passed by the adalath dated 09.01.2010. In the order it is specifically stated that the complainant is directed to approach appropriate Forum for his redressal. The opposite party sent notice dated 25.02.2010 to complainant to inform the sale of the gold through auction. The opposite party also admits this but the averment of the complainant is that he sent registered notice on 08.03.2010 showing his willingness to release the gold loan. At the time of cross examination of complainant he deposed that the opposite party accepted his letter dated 08.03.2010 and ready to produce document to show that the same was accepted by the opposite party. But no such document was seen produced. The complainant did not produce any report of the CI of Police, Neyyattinkara to show that the opposite party received 4% additional interest to 29.096%. At the time of deposition also he stated that he is ready to produce the same, but not produced. The complainant at the time of deposition admits Ext. D4 document and his signature. He also admits that interest was recorded in Ext. D4 as 29.96% per annum. At the time of cross examination in page 5 of deposition “നിങ്ങള് ഒരു പണയം തിരികെ എടുത്തു എന്ന് പറയുന്നല്ലോ അപ്പോള് കൂടുതല് തുക കൈപ്പറ്റിയെന്നാണല്ലോ നിങ്ങളുടെ തര്ക്കം. 1285 രൂപ കൂടുതലായി ഈടാക്കിയെന്ന് എന്ത് അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലാണ് പറയുന്നത്? (Q) 15% പലിശ വെച്ച് കണക്കാക്കിയപ്പോള് 1285 രൂപ അധികമായിയെന്ന് മനസ്സിലായി (A)”. This allegation of the complainant does not exist as the complainant himself admits that in Ext. D4 document the interest recorded is 29.96% per annum. He also received auction notice from opposite party. Moreover the complainant did not produce any document to show that he was ready to release the loans. The complainant got Ext. P3 document on 09.01.2010, but he approached this Forum only on 02.12.2011. Thus on going through the statement and evidence it is seen that the complainant failed to prove that there is deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on opposite party’s side. Therefore there is no merit in allowing the complaint. Hence complaint is dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 29th day of March 2017.
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 381/2011
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - K.V. Ayyappanasari
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of certificate of posting
P2 - Acknowledgement card & postal receipt
P3 - Order dated 09.01.2010
P4 - Copy of letter dated 08.03.2010 issued by O.P
P5 - Copy of reply notice dated 05.01.2011
P6 - Postal receipt
P6(a) - Statement of account dated 21.09.2012
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
DW1 - Jayaraj. N.R
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
D1 - Pledge receipt
D2 - Terms and conditions of O.P
D2(a) - Terms and conditions of O.P
D3 - Acknowledgement card
D3(a) - Acknowledgement card
D4 - Document showing pledge of ornaments
D4(a) - Document showing pledge of ornaments
D5 - Auction details
D6 - Statement of account dated 21.09.2012
D7 - Reply notice dated 05.01.2011
D8 - Acknowledgement card
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
