Mary Mettilda P Vs Ombudsman (NBFC) (Madras High Court)
Summary: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that Muthoot Mini Finance Limited could not avoid responsibility for jewellery allegedly misappropriated and re-pledged by its erstwhile Branch Manager. The petitioner claimed that she had pledged 134.2 grams of gold jewellery for Rs.7,00,000/- and repaid Rs.89,500/- on 30.09.2025. She further claimed to have pledged 88.85 grams of gold jewellery for Rs.4,00,000/-. When she approached the branch on 24.11.2025 with the principal amount and interest to redeem the jewellery, she allegedly discovered that the jewellery had been misappropriated and re-pledged for a higher amount. A police complaint led to registration of Crime No.428 of 2025. The RBI Ombudsman’s counsel submitted that the complaint had been closed under clause 16(2)(e) of the Reserve Bank – Integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2026, since criminal proceedings and issues requiring detailed evidence were involved.
The finance company denied that the petitioner had pledged the jewellery with the branch or that it had issued the receipts relied upon by her. It contended that the petitioner had personally dealt with the erstwhile Branch Manager, who had allegedly received jewellery and issued forged handwritten receipts. According to the company, its internal audit revealed that the erstwhile Branch Manager had misappropriated jewellery belonging to several customers, issued forged loan receipts and re-pledged jewellery with the same branch and other banks and finance companies for higher amounts. The transactions had allegedly never been entered in the company’s system, which issued system-generated receipts with customer photographs. The company submitted that it had itself initiated criminal action against the erstwhile manager.
