State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. M. Natarajan, S/O. Mayandi, ... vs Manappuram General Finance And Leasing ... on 17 June, 2013
IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Thiru.A.K.. ANNAMALAI, M.A. M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Judicial Member
Thiru.S. SAMBANDAM, Member
F.A.No.26/2012
(F.A.No.190/2010 on the file of State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Chennai.)
(Against the order in C.C.No.76/2008 on the file of DCDRF, Theni)
MONDAY, THE 17th DAY OF JUNE 2013.
Mr. M. Natarajan,
S/o. Mayandi,
No.35/6, Kamayagoundan Patti,
Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District. Appellant/Complainant
Vs
1. Manappuram General Finance and
Leasing Limited.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Manappuram Finance
Manappuram House,
Valapadu, Thirchor,
Kerela State.
2. Manapuram General Finance,
and leasing Limited.,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
D.330, Haji Said Kala Complex,
North side Main Road,
Cumbam, Theni District. Respondents/Opposite Parties
Counsel for Appellant/Complainant: Mr.G. Moorthy, Advocate.
For Respondents /Opposite parties: Mr. A.P. Athithan, Advocate.
2
ORDER
Thiru. A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER. (Open Court)
1. The unsatisfied complainant is the appellant.
2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties for deficiency of service regarding the jewels pledged and not returning the same which was sold in auction without the knowledge of the complainant and thereby claiming the relief of return of jewels and compensation for Rs.25,000/- each towards mental agony and loss for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- as costs.
3. Against which, after an enquiry, the District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5000/- for mental agony with 12% interest and another sum of Rs. 5000/- as costs and also directed to pay the complainant the value of the jewels after determining the value as on date of auction conducted and after deducting the amount with interest payable by the complainant to the opposite party relating to the jewel loan.
4. The complainant not satisfied with the award of compensation by the District Forum come forward with this appeal claiming compensation as prayed for in the complaint. The respondent/opposite party did not file any appeal against the order of the District Forum.
5. We have heard both sides' arguments and carefully considered the materials placed before us. It is the case of the complainant while pledging the jewels on various dates and for the pledged amount when he is due for payment 3 without his knowledge or intimation the opposite party sold the jewels in public auction and aggrieved by the same, the complainant come forward with the consumer complaint and even though the opposite party refuted the allegations, the District Forum after considering both sides materials passed well considered order and awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service of the opposite parties regarding the transactions and another sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony with 12% interest and also costs of Rs.5000/-.
6. When the complainant claimed Rs.25,000/- each for mental agony and deficiency in service regarding the jewel loan transaction, the opposite party contended that the complainant had not redeemed the jewels as per the terms and conditions within the prescribed period and after following the procedure the jewels were auctioned and in those circumstances, the District Forum also directed the opposite party to return the value of the jewels to be determined as on the date of auction already made along with interest after payment of dues with reasonable interest by the complainant to the opposite party towards the jewel loan and in those circumstances, when the complainant himself has to comply with the certain directions towards the opposite party, we are of the view that there is no need for any enhancement of compensation as the award of the District Forum in this regard is justifiable and cannot be considered as meagre or disproportionate. Hence, this award needs no interference in this regard and thereby the appeal is to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
4
7. in the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum passed in C.C.No.76/2008, dated 26.11.2009. No order as to costs in this appeal.
S. SAMBANDAM, A.K. ANNAMALAI,
MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER