KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURM APPEAL.35/03 JUDGMENT DATED.22.1.2008 (Against the order passed by the CDRF, Kasargod in OP.93/02) PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN -- MEMBER 1. Manipal Sowbhaghya Nidhi Ltd. Reg.Office Manipal House, Manipal 576119, Karnataka. 2. The Branch Manager, -- APPELLANTS Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd., Kasargod Branch. (By Adv.S.S.Kalkura & Others) Vs. Aboobacker.K. S/0 Haji Ahamed Kunhi Kerala Ayurvedic Pharmacy, -- RESPONDENT Opp.Kannadypalli, Railway Station, Road, Kasargod. (By Adv.R.Balakrishnan Nair & Others JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.KR.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.93/02 in the file of CDRF, Kasargod who have sought for setting aside the order of the Forum, directing to return a sum of Rs.28946/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 14.12.01 to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation. 2. It is the case of the complainant/respondent that he purchased gold ornament worth Rs.28946/- weighing 82 grams at the auction on 14.12.01 at the premises of the appellants. He remitted a sum of Rs.28946/- in cash on 14.12.01 and took delivery of the ornament. The ornament was in a broken condition and he took the same to the jewellery shop belonging to one Ravikumar Kamath, and it was found that the ornament is not gold as such but only covered with gold with silver inside. The loss is assessed as 70% of the ornament. When the matter was taken up before the Branch Manager he assured him that the amount will be retuned. Subsequently a letter dated.15.1.02 to the second opposite party, the Branch Manager demanding the return of the amount. But vide letter 6.3.02 opposite party No.2 rejected the request of the complainant. There is deficiency of service and hence the prayer to return Rs.28946/- with interest at 18% per annum and compensation for Rs.5000/-. 3. Opposite parties filed a joint version alleging that the complainant took part in the auction only after verifying the ornament and after convincing about the genuineness of the same. It is denied that the Branch Manager had assured to return the amount. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 & 2, Exts.P1 & P2, M.O.1 series and Ext.R1 and the testimony of DWs 1 & 2. 5. We find that PW1 has testified as to the fact that the ornament bid by him was found to be silver covered with gold, and he has also produced before the Forum. It is the version that he had approached the Branch Manager a number of times, and that he has assured that the amount will be returned. According to him immediately after taking delivery of the gold ornaments after the bid, on the next day he approached a gold smith and it was found that the ornament is not genuine. Opposite party/Branch Manager assured him that the person who pledged the gold would be located and the loss caused would be made good. The assurance was not kept. He issued the letter etc. 6. We find that PW1 has not been cross examined with respect to the above matters. PW1 has been questioned only as to the fact that he has received the ornament after satisfying that the same is genuine. But he has answered that he has only seen the ornament. Of course, it is suggested that the ornament sold to him is of pure gold. It is not put to him in the cross examination that the Branch Manager has not assured him that the money received will be returned. It is not put to him that the Branch Manager has not assured that the person who pledged the ornaments will be located and made to reimburse the complainant. We also find that Ext.P2 reply is too precise and of a single sentence one can mentioning that the request cannot be considered for the reasons already explained to him. The version in Ext.P2 letter that the reasons have already been explained would indicate that the petitioner met the Branch Manager earlier. 7. It is contended that there is a delay in filing the complaint. The complaint has been filed on 9.5.02. We find that PW1 has not been cross examined about this aspect at all. DW2 the appriser of the bank has admitted in the cross examination that PW1 had been to the bank a number of times to get his grievance redressed and that the person who pledged the ornaments could not be traced. DW2 has further stated that he himself gone in search of the original pledgee but the person could not be traced. 8. It was contended that the person who examined the ornament at the instance of the complainant were not examined. We find that the name of PW2, who is the owner of jewellery wherein the ornament was examined has deposed. The Forum has found that the evidence of PW1 is trustworthy; and rightly so. Hence non-examination of the gold smith as such is not that relevant. 9. In the circumstances, we find that the finding of the Forum that had the opportunity to test the demeneour of the witnesses is not to be disturbed. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is confirmed. Appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN -- MEMBER s/L | 
