Kosamattom Finance (P) Ltd vs Anil Ravindran

THE complainant/respondent pledged gold ornaments with the petitioner company in three separate accounts, in order to avail loan of Rs.21,000/ -, Rs.24,000/ - and Rs.22,000/ - respectively. There was yet another pledge of a gold chain for taking a loan of Rs.8,500/ - but admittedly the said pledge was redeemed by making payment to the petitioner company. However, since the complainant did not pay the loan taken from the petitioner, the gold pledged by him was sold by the petitioner company by way of an auction. The case of the petitioner company is that the gold was sold for a sum of Rs.76,384/ - whereas the amount due from the complainant was Rs.79,754/ -. The petitioner filed a civil suit against the complainant before Munsif Court, Cherthala for recovery of the aforesaid amount. Vide order dated 10 -07 -2009 the civil court held that the petitioner was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.3,905/ - from the complainant, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on the original sum of Rs.3,370/ - with effect from 31 -05 -2006 and was also entitled to the cost of the suit. The aforesaid judgment was passed by the civil court on merits after considering the defence set up by the complainant in his written statement.

THE case of the complainant has been that the petitioner has recovered excess interest from him since interest was recovered at the rate of 18% per annum whereas it could not have been recovered at the rate of more than 14% per annum. This also has been the case of the complainant that no receipt was given to him for certain payments made by him.

THE complainant on the other hand filed a complaint before the concerned District Forum on 03 -03 -2006 alleging deficiency in the services rendered by the petitioner company and seeking return of the gold on payment of the principal amount with interest after adjusting the excess amount awarded from him towards interest. The complainant also sought refund of the excess amount collected from him, besides cost of the proceedings and compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/ -. The District Forum vide its order dated 30 -11 -2008 directed the petitioner company to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/ - as compensation to the complainant.

BEING aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the complainant preferred an appeal before the concerned State Commission. No appeal, however, was preferred by the petitioner before us against the order of the District Forum. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 21 -03 -2013 directed the petitioner company to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ - to the complainant as compensation. Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission the petitioner company is before us by way of this revision petition.

THE petitioner company had also filed a writ petition in Kerala High Court challenging the order passed by the State Commission. The High Court vide order dated 13 -11 -2013, inter alia held that the issue before the Civil Court with regard to the actual amount due to the petitioner/plaintiff whereas the issue before the State Commission was with regard to the defective services which came within exclusive domain of the said Commission. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner company.

IN view of the order of the Civil Court which the complainant did not challenge, it cannot be disputed that a sum of Rs.3,905/ - was due from the complainant to the petitioner along with interest on the original amount of Rs.3,370/ -, at the rate of 6% per annum.

AS regards the alleged deficiency on the part of the petitioner in rendering services to the complainant we find that no evidence was led by the parties to prove the market rate of gold at the time the gold of the complainant was sold by the petitioner company by way of auction. The learned counsel for the complainant states that in his evidence on affidavit the complainant had clearly stated that the jewellery pledged by him was of the standard 916. She also states that the aforesaid statement of the complainant was not disputed by the petitioner company. However, no evidence was led by either party to prove the carattage of the gold ornaments having standard 916 nor did the complainant lead any evidence to prove the market value of the gold of the standard 916 on the date the jewellery was sold by way of auction. Therefore, it would be necessary to remit the matter back to the District Forum to render a finding as regards the market value of the gold jewellery which the petitioner company had sold by way of an auction. Only then an appropriate quantum of the compensation, if any, to be awarded to the complainant can be worked depending upon the difference between the market value of the gold on the date of the auction and the value which the petitioner claims to have realised from the said sale.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the State Commission as well as the District Forum are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence to prove the market value of the jewellery of the complainant, on the date the said jewellery was sold by the petitioner company by way of an auction. The amount of compensation, if any, to be awarded to the complainant would obviously be in consonance with the difference between the market value of the said jewellery and the value which the petitioner had realised in the auction conducted by him. The District Forum shall pass a fresh order after recording additional evidence in terms of this order, within three months of the parties appearing before it. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned District Forum on 15 -12 -2014. A copy of this order be given dasti to the parties.