Karnataka High Court
J H Prasanna Kumar vs Muthoot Mini Financier Ltd on 5 June, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19286
WP No. 1196 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1196 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
J.H. PRASANNA KUMAR
S/O. J.R. HANUMANTH RAO
AGED 56 YEARS
R/AT B006, AMITY HARMONY APTS
CHANNA SANDRA
BANGALORE-560 098.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI J.H. PRASANNA KUMAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. MUTHOOT MINI FINANCIER LTD.
REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER
NO.374/A, SBM COLONY
BSK 1ST STAGE
BANGALORE-560 050.
Digitally signed
by VANDANA S 2. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
Location: HIGH NBFC DIVISION
COURT OF NRUPATUNGA ROAD
KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001
REPRESENTED BY A.G.M.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KHUSHOO KAPOOR FOR SRI RAJESH VELLAKKAL,
ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SMT. MATHEW K.P.M. VARGHESE,
ADVOCATE FOR R-1)
THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
THE RBI DATED 20.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ALONG WITH A
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19286
WP No. 1196 of 2024
DIRECTION TO THE RBI TO ENSURE THAT THE GOLD PLEDGED IS
REDELIVERED SAFELY TO THE PETITIONER BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:
a) Set aside the order of the RBI dated 20.12.2023 vide
Annexure-E along with a direction to the RBI to ensure
that the gold pledged is redelivered safely to the
petitioner by the respondent No.1.
b) Direct the respondent No.1 to adhere to covid moratorium
in letter and spirit and collect only simple interest from
March 2020 to August 2020 as may be decided by the
Hon'ble Court.
c) The Hon'ble Court may be also pleased to give relief of
interest from August 2020 till date in accordance with the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravindra Vs.
Central Bank of India.
d) Issue necessary direction to the RBI to regulate the gold
loan interest of the NBFCs in line with the banking
companies so that the petitioner is not subjected to
predatory lending practice by gold loan companies in
future.
NC: 2024:KHC:19286
e) Pass such other orders and further orders as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard petitioner / party-in-person and learned counsel for
respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is
the specific contention of the petitioner that despite the Consumer
Complaint in CC.No.1046/2020 having been disposed of closed as
long back as on 07.01.2023 itself, the respondent No.2 - RBI has
proceeded to issue the impugned communication at Annexure - E
dated 20.12.2023 which was subsequent to disposal of the
aforesaid consumer complaint earlier on 07.01.2023. It is the
grievance of the petitioner that though Consumer complaint had
already been disposed of and was no longer subjudice before the
Consumer Court, the respondent No.2 - RBI committed an error in
rejecting to consider the complaint on the ground which was not
maintainable since the matter was subjudice before the Consumer
Court and as such, the impugned endorsement deserves to be
quashed and the matter remitted back to the respondent No.2 -
RBI for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
NC: 2024:KHC:19286
4. Per contra, respondent No.2 submits that as per the
Ombudsman Scheme 2021 in particular Clause 10(2)(b)(ii),
respondent No.2 - RBI is entitled to reject the complaint not only
because the same was subjudice but also in the event the
complaint had already been dismissed by the Consumer Court on
merits and as such, the question of interfering the impugned
endorsement does not arise in the facts of the instant case.
5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
proceedings before the Consumer Court in CC.No.1046/2020
pursuant to the complaint given by the petitioner came to an end as
long back as 07.01.2023 subsequent to which date the matter was
no longer subjudice before the Consumer Court. In this context, a
perusal of the impugned endorsement will indicate that the sole
reason for which the complaint of the petitioner was rejected by the
respondent No.2 - RBI was by stating that the matter was
subjudice which is factually incorrect as can be seen from the
aforesaid material on record especially the disposal of the
consumer complaint on 07.01.2023, which was prior to issuing the
impugned endorsement / communication. Under these
circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the
NC: 2024:KHC:19286
impugned endorsement / communication and remit the matter back
to the respondent No.2 - RBI to reconsider the complaint of the
petitioner afresh in accordance with law within a stipulated time
frame.
6. Per contra, party-in-person also submits that the
complaint before the Consumer Court only the respondent No.2 -
RBI did not respond to the grievance ventilated by the petitioner in
2020.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned communication / endorsement at
Annexure - E dated 20.12.2023 is hereby set aside,
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent
No.2 - RBI for reconsideration of the claim / complaint of the
petitioner afresh in accordance with law.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner -
party-in-person to submit additional pleadings, documents before
NC: 2024:KHC:19286
the respondent No.2 - RBI who shall consider the same and take
appropriate decision / pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law within a period of 3 months from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DHA
