SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

V.K.JAIN, ANUP K.THAKUR
Lathika C. – Appellant
Versus
Br. Manager, Muthoot Finance (P) Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Advocate

ORDER

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The petitioner / complainant pledged gold ornaments weighting 52 grams with the respondent Muthoot Finance Pvt. Ltd., on 22.09.2003, while taking a loan of Rs.21,000/-. According to the petitioner/ complainant, when she approached the concerned branch of the respondent in April, 2004, to redeem the ornaments by paying the loan amount with interest, they refused, saying that the ornaments had, by mistake been transferred to their head office. Thereafter, the petitioner / complainant left Nedungolam, where she was at that time living and settled in Ernakulam. On 23.5.2011, she again approached the respondent for redeeming the gold ornaments pledged by her but the said ornaments were not returned to her. Being aggrieved, she approached the concerned District Forum with a complaint.

2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent which took a preliminary objection that it was barred by limitation. On merits it was alleged that the petitioner / complainant had not turned up after pledging the gold ornaments.

3. The District Forum vide its order dated 10.02.2014 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved the petitioner / complainant approached the concerned S







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top