The Managing Director Mini Muthootu Nidhi Kerala (Ltd) and Another Vs. N. Sudheesan - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1111928
CourtKerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided OnApr-07-2008
Case NumberAPPEAL NO. 204 of 07
JudgeJUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT, SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER & SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
AppellantThe Managing Director Mini Muthootu Nidhi Kerala (Ltd) and Another
RespondentN. Sudheesan
Excerpt:
sri. s. chandramohan nair: member the opposite parties in cc.no.393/06 in the file of cdrf, kollam have preferred this appeal against the order dated 25/1/2007 wherein and whereby the opposite parties are directed to give the pledged gold ornaments to the complainant after receiving the principal amount with interest payable as per the r.b.i. guidelines. they are further directed to pay rs.3000/- as compensation and rs.1,000/- as costs. 2. the case of the complainant before the forum was that he had pledged gold ornaments weighing 44 grams and 28 ½ grams with the 2nd opposite party on 15/9/2004 vide account no. 7243 and 7244 and availed loan amounts of rs.20,000/- and rs.13,000/- respectively. the complainant defaulted in the payment of interest and on 9/6/05 he approached the 2nd opposite party for taking the pledged items. it is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties were reluctant to return the gold ornaments raising one or other reasons. though the complainant approached the legal service authority, the opposite parties did not turn up and hence the present complaint was filed for directions to give back the gold ornaments on payment of the capital amounts with due interest. 3. the opposite parties remained absent and were set exparte by the lower forum. 4. the evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as pw1 and exts.p1 to p5. 5. the contentions raised by the appellants in the present appeal are that the complaint is not maintainable before the forum as the complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under the provisions of the consumer protection act. it is also urged that the opposite parties did not get sufficient opportunity to substantiate their case before the forum. 6. the counsel for the respondent submitted before us that the appellants/opposite parties were evading the proceedings and there was no representation for the opposite parties before the lower forum though notices were issued. the learned counsel also relied on the decision of the honble supreme court in standard chartered bank ltd. vs dr.b.n.raman (2006 (3) cpj 1 (sc) wherein it is held that banking services come under the term service under section 2(1) (o) of the consumer protection act and that banking means acceptance for the purposes of lending or investment of deposit of money from the public repayable on demand or otherwise of the banking regulation act 1949. she reiterated that the complainant had availed the services of the bank and consideration was paid in terms of interest and argued that banks provide or render services to its customers and as such the complainant is a consumer and the forum should be justified in directing the opposite parties to return the gold ornaments on payment of the principal amount with interest. she also submitted that the compensation ordered was only nominal and supported the findings of the forum below. 7. we find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent. apart from the bare contention in the appeal that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable, the opposite parties were negligent in contesting or substantiating their case before the forum by filing version and adducing evidence. the complainant had pledged the gold ornaments for availing loan and was ready to pay back the principal and interest. it is also noted that the opposite parties had not returned the ornaments though the complainant was ready to remit the principal amount with interest. the learned counsel submitted before us that the complainant is even now ready to pay the amounts taken by him with interest. 8. in the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the cdrf, kollam, there by directing the opposite parties to release the gold ornaments on payment of the principal amounts with interest payable as per r.b.i. guidelines with compensation and costs awarded by the forum. if the opposite parties/ appellants are unable to return the gold ornaments to the complainant /respondent, they are directed to pay the value of the gold ornaments at the current market rate with the compensation and cost as ordered. in the result the appeal is dismissed. there is no order as to costs.
Judgment:

SRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER

The opposite parties in CC.No.393/06 in the file of CDRF, Kollam have preferred this appeal against the order dated 25/1/2007 wherein and whereby the opposite parties are directed to give the pledged gold ornaments to the complainant after receiving the principal amount with interest payable as per the R.B.I. guidelines. They are further directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.

2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he had pledged gold ornaments weighing 44 grams and 28 ½ grams with the 2nd opposite party on 15/9/2004 vide Account No. 7243 and 7244 and availed loan amounts of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.13,000/- respectively. The complainant defaulted in the payment of interest and on 9/6/05 he approached the 2nd opposite party for taking the pledged items. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties were reluctant to return the gold ornaments raising one or other reasons. Though the complainant approached the legal service authority, the opposite parties did not turn up and hence the present complaint was filed for directions to give back the gold ornaments on payment of the capital amounts with due interest.

3. The opposite parties remained absent and were set exparte by the lower forum.

4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5.

5. The contentions raised by the appellants in the present appeal are that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum as the complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It is also urged that the opposite parties did not get sufficient opportunity to substantiate their case before the Forum.

6. The counsel for the respondent submitted before us that the appellants/opposite parties were evading the proceedings and there was no representation for the opposite parties before the lower forum though notices were issued. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. Vs Dr.B.N.Raman (2006 (3) CPJ 1 (SC) wherein it is held that Banking Services come under the term service under Section 2(1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act and that banking means acceptance for the purposes of lending or investment of deposit of money from the public repayable on demand or otherwise of the Banking Regulation Act 1949. She reiterated that the complainant had availed the services of the bank and consideration was paid in terms of interest and argued that banks provide or render services to its customers and as such the complainant is a consumer and the Forum should be justified in directing the opposite parties to return the gold ornaments on payment of the principal amount with interest. She also submitted that the compensation ordered was only nominal and supported the findings of the forum below.

7. We find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent. Apart from the bare contention in the appeal that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable, the opposite parties were negligent in contesting or substantiating their case before the Forum by filing version and adducing evidence. The complainant had pledged the gold ornaments for availing loan and was ready to pay back the principal and interest. It is also noted that the opposite parties had not returned the ornaments though the complainant was ready to remit the principal amount with interest. The learned counsel submitted before us that the complainant is even now ready to pay the amounts taken by him with interest.

8. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the CDRF, Kollam, there by directing the opposite parties to release the gold ornaments on payment of the principal amounts with interest payable as per R.B.I. guidelines with compensation and costs awarded by the Forum. If the opposite parties/ appellants are unable to return the gold ornaments to the complainant /respondent, they are directed to pay the value of the gold ornaments at the current market rate with the compensation and cost as ordered.

In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.