FA  966/2012  against CC 243/2011  on the file of the District Consumer Forum II, Krishna District at Vijayawada.

Between :

Gande S/o Retd Lecturer, R/o D. No. 48-12-15

304,

Gundadala, Vijayawada                                         .. appellant/complainant

And

01. Seemakurthi S/o Krishna

Business at D.No.29-37-3,

Eluru Road, Vijayawada – 522 002.

02. Sri

Rep. by its Managing  Partner

PVA Business at D No. 29-37-3,

Seetarampuram,  Vijayawada – 522 002. ..Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant              :           Mr. V.  

Counsel for the Respondents       :           Mr.  

Coram           ;          

                              Sri R.      

And

                                    Sri T. Ashok Kumar                ..        

Monday, the Twenty Fifth  Day of March

Two Thousand Thirteen

          Oral Order       :   ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar ,

****

       1.        This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant    as against the  orders dated 12.11.2012   in CC243/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum II, Krishna District at Vijayawada. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :

2.            The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant by pledging two gold bangles weighing about 24 grams borrowed Rs.16,000/-  from the Ops Pawn Brokers on 13.2.2008 after testing  the purity of the gold and  got a slip to return the same  at the time of discharging the debt. On  24.05.2011 when he approached the Ops for discharging  the loan amount, they told him, without furnishing the details of auction or the procedure adopted by them, that the ornaments were auctioned.  He got issued a legal notice on 24.05.2011 but it was refused by OP.1 who is the agent of OP.2 which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part  and thus he filed the complaint to direct the opposite parties to award an amount of  Rs.60,000/- for not returning the pledged ornaments, damages of

3.         OP.1 filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the brief facts of the counter are as under:

             The first opposite party is only an employee and the second opposite party is the partner of the firm Sri    The complainant. after signing the form  and accepting the terms and conditions, availed loan of Rs.16,000/- on 13.2.2008 initially and subsequently Rs.2,000/- on 20.02.2008 by pledging gold ornaments weighing about 22.5   within one year.   In the month of August, 2009 when they addressed a letter to the complainant to discharge the loan amount with interest but it was returned unclaimed and on enquiry at last he received notice from the personnel of the firm but did not turn up. Having waited till February, 2011, the bangles were disposed of as per the rules. The complaint is barred by limitation. There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.     The 2^nd opposite party filed similar  version as that of OP.1.

5.    Both sides filed  evidence affidavit reiterating their respective pleadings  and  Ex. A-1 to A-3  were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B -1 to B-9  were  marked for the OP.

  6.          Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part and directed the second opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.11,377/-being surplus amount with interest @ 12% PA  from 24.5.2011, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs within one month. The complaint against 1^st opposite party is dismissed.

7.            Feeling aggrieved with the said order the unsuccessful complainant  filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the District Forum failed to see that the Ops without any prior notice unilaterally sold away 24 grams of gold even in February, 2011 and  that the weight of the bangles at 22.5  in assessing the value of 22.5 grams of golden bangles at Rs.38,227.50 as on 24.5.2011 and  that  purity of gold was wrongly assessed and that there is no proof of documents about the auction of the ornaments and that the Ops violated the provisions of A. P. Pawn Brokers Act, 2002  and the provisions of AP (AA) Pawn Brokers Act 1943 and that the order of the District Forum in allowing the complaint in part is contrary to law and thus prayed to modify the impugned order and consequently allow the complaint and the appeal.

8.            Both sides file written arguments    with reference to their   respective contentions in detail.

9.            Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is sustainable ?

10.        There is no dispute that the complainant fledged two gold bangles with Sri     whereas Op 2 contended that the weight of the bangles was only 22.5  elaborate manner quoting relevant sections  of A. P. Pawn Brokers Act and Rules the District Forum held that the Ops have committed deficiency in service as pawn brokers to the complainant in selling the fledged gold bangles without following the due procedure laid down for sale of such items and that there is no need to reiterate the same in this order. Since the complainant had right to redeem the fledged items till 13.2.2010 and as sale of the said items was in the month of July, 2011 it was held that the complaint dated 5.7.2011 was not barred by limitation.  As per the relevant provision of law the pawn broker had right to dispose of the pledged item after a period of the redemption by issuing proper notice under Rule 20 of the said Act.  In this case no such notice was given. Had it was given the complainant would have availed an opportunity to get his articles released from the pledge and in such circumstances for rendering substantial justice the District Forum had taken the market value of the gold as on 25.4.2011 into consideration to know the amount that would have been realized by auction of the fledged items so also weight of 22.5  and purity of the gold described supra and arrived that the proportionate price of the gold was Rs.16,989.32  and thus the total amount payable and interest thereon in a sum of Rs.8,850/- by 24.5.2011 and arrived at Rs.26,850/- payable to the opposite party no. 2 by the complainant. The said amount was deducted from Rs.38.227.50   and 12% interest thereon per annum from 24.5.2007 till payment , Rs.10,000/- compensation and costs of Rs.2,000/-. Absolutely there are no merits to take a different view by this Commission because the complainant did not produce any dependable evidence from his side with regard to weight, purity and the then price of the gold.  Thus, the appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.

11.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum . There are no order as to costs of the Appeal.

                                                                                    MEMBER

                                                                                    MEMBER

                                                                                    DATED    25.03.2013.