AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 261 wordsTHIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Kottayam, O.P. No. 656/ 96. The opposite party is the appellant.
WE issued notice to the respondent in the address given in the complaint but it was returned with endorsement that the addressee left India. WE, therefore, treated this as proper service. The contention raised by the complainant was that he availed a gold loan of Rs. 6,800/- from the opposite party on 15.10.90 pledging 38 gms of gold and paid Rs. 11.445/- on closing the loan on 13.3.93 and that as per the agreement the interest chargeable was 18% plus 2% penal interest for default in delaying the payment, but the opposite party charged interest up to 26.5% at different periods in violation of the agreement.
The District Forum held that the opposite party has not produced any evidence to show that the interest charged is correct. Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party/respondent has produced document prescribing interest for various periods in such cases and it seems the interest charged is correct. This apart Revision Petition No. 50/95 Federal Bank v. Stanclaus, the National Commission has held that a loan on the strength of pledging gold only creates relationship of creditor and debtor and as such a transaction would not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. In the circumstances we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. This will not preclude the complainant from seeking any remedy for redressal of his alleged grievance. Appeal allowed.