State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager M/S. Iifl India ... vs Mohammed Kareem Khan on 30 May, 2022
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE cONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD
FA 260/2021
Against
C.C.No.34/2018,
District Commission, Karimnagar.
Between
The Branch Manager,
M/s.IIFL. India Infoline Finance Limited,
#1-5-362, 1st Floor, Near Kaman,
Karimnagar - 505 001.
Appellant/
Opposite party
And
Mohammed Kareem Khan,
S/o.Md.Qutubuddin Khan,
Aged 32 years, Occ: Self Employed,
R/o.6-2-908, Hussainipura,
Karimnagar - 505 001.
Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant Mr.Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy
Counsel for the Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S.K. Jaiswal, President.
And
Hon'ble Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member
MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO.
Oral Order:
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party feeling aggrieved by the order dt.23.2.2021 in CC.34/2018 on the file of District Commission, Karimnagar Dist.
2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as follows:
The complainant availed gold loan of Rs.55,000/- from the opposite party on 21.7.2017 by pledging his gold jewellery. The complainant paid three instalments and the due date for the next instalment was 20.1.2018. The opposite party has disposed the complainant's jewellery prior to the due date, without giving any notice to the complainant. The complainant got issued notice to the opposite party through Karimnagar Consumer Council and as he filod the pres5Ct complaint direetion to the opposile party to pay Rs.1,30,0007 seein towareds value of gold, Ri.50,000/ towards couensalio and s,.20001 towarda conls.
3. Bcfore tho Diatrict Commission, the opposile party though being granted, did appeured through counnel and sulficient time not choose to filc written version or afficdavit.
his
4. Before thc District Commission, the complainant filed proofaflidavit and got marked Exs.Al to A3.
The District Commission allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party to refund the complainant, the value of the gold i.c. 35 gms. after deducting the due amount under Gold Loan Account no.7935574 as20.01.2018.
on The District Commission further ordcred that the net amount carries interest 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.c. 23.01.2018 till realisation and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the litigation within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
5. Aggrieved by the said order appellant/opposite party filed this appeal with the following grounds:
The District Forum failed to note that the present complaint is not a Consumer Dispute and the respondent/complainant is not a consumer, as the appellant//opposite party did not provide any services sold any nor goods to the respondent/complainant;
The relationship of respondent/complainant and appellant/opposite party is that of debtor and creditor and it is the right of the appellant/opp.party to auction/sell the items pledged with them in terms of Sec.176 of Indian Contract Act.
The respondent/complainant without any
bonafide reason made a false claim of
Rs.1,37,000/- based on false and frivolous
allegations and hence the
respondent/complainant is not eligible for any kind of reliot The appellant/opponite arty prayed t0 allow the appeal by nettlnH aNide orler of the Dintrict th Commiaaion Tlaving hearnd the aubmianiona made by the learned counsel for the appellant/oppoaite party who la elhallenglng the correetness ol the onder paaned by the Dintriet Commisaion, KarimnagAr in C.CNo.J1/2018 dt, 23.2.202, what find in that even though we he learned counsel strenuoualy made certain submiasiona, but the aid aubnminniona are not backed by cither pleadings or evicdence. The cardinal rule or aljulioation of any lis ia thhat any party to the dispute ahoulkl tirat plead his cane, prove his case nnd then 01n that. Neither is there any pleading on the part of the Appellant/opposite party nor is there any evicdence, Without there being any pleadingsN or evidenee, the learned counscl appearing for the appellant/opposite party has argued elaborately which cannot merit any considcration.
7. The briclly stated facts are The reapondent/complainant has obtained gold loan on 21.7.2017 by pledging his gold jewelery weighing 35 gms. and took a loan of Ra55,000/-. The respondent/complainant claimed that he paid three instalnents and the qth instaiment was due and payable on 20.1.2018. According to the respondent/complainant, even before the due date, the appellant/opposite purty has sold the gold in auction without putting the respondent/complainant on notice.
These specilic allegations made by the respondenl/complainant have not been controverted by the appellant/opposite party either by filing uny written version or producing any oral or documentary evidence Without there being any challenge to what the respondent/complainant submits, the appellant/opposite party cannot be heard saying in the appellate Court that the nd respondent/complainant has failed to prove his case,that the dispute do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. In the absence of there being any pleadings, the submissions of the learned counsel for thec appellant/opposite party cannot be sustained. The respondent/complainant has proved his case by producing Exs.Al to A3. Ex.A3-Receipt specifically shows that the A of gold on 21.7.201 has received 35 gms.
appellant/opposite party was pledged.
was issued shows that the jewellery and the receipt was jewellery pledged by the respondent/complainant When the appellant/opposite record. Even though the auctioned is not on selling the legal notice before submits that they have issued party is to that effect nor Jewellery, once again there are n o pleadings evidence or oral arguments produced by there is any documentary the to show that before auctioning the appellant/opposite party on notice.
jewellery, they have put the respondent/complainant the of the appeal, no effort was made bby Even during pendency evidence by way of the appellant/opposite party to produce any an application. In view of the above, we do not see any error in the order of the District Commission and the same is liable to be confirmed.
In the result, appeal fails and the same is dismissed.