SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This complaint is for getting back the gold ornaments pledged with the opp.party, compensation and costs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant had pledged gold ornaments weighing47.800 gram and availed a loan of Rs.32,000/- On 16.5.2006 the complainant approached the opp.party for remitting the loan amount in part. But the opp.party was reluctant to receive such part payment and interest and said that the entire loan amount and interest must be paid. On 12.4.2008 the complainant received a notice from the opp.party by which he has been asked to pay a sum of Rs.49,600/- for redeeming in the pledged ornaments. The rate of interest is not stated in the notice. The complainant has charged exorbitant interest. The opp.party is making preparations to conduct auction of the gold ornaments. The action of the opp.party amounst to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and hence the complaint. The opp.party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. It is true that the complainant has pledged 47.8 gram old gold ornaments on 16.5.2006 and availed a loan of Rs.32,000/- . The loan amount given was equal to the prevailing market value of the gold at that time. In fact a sum of Rs.213/- was given in excess to the complainant above the prevailing market rate. The complainant has pledged the gold ornaments as per the interest prevailing in the opp.party. It was also agreed that in case of default compound interest and penal interest would be given at the time of redeeming the loan. The complainant did not turn up to take back the gold ornaments despite giving several notices. If the gold ornaments are not taken back within one year the opp.party has every right to auction the gold ornaments and realize the loan amount with interest and penal interest as per the conditions in the agreement. The opp.party used give facility to make part payments and the complaint was informed of it. Even after receipt of the above notices and in spite of deputing a representative of the opp.party, the complainant did not close the loan. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint Points that would arise for consideration : 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer? 2. Whether the complaint is maintainable 3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 4. Reliefs and costs. For the complainantPW.1 is examined. Exts.P1 and P2 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 is marked. POINTS: The contention of opp.party is that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as the relationship of the parties is one of debtor creditor relying on the decision of National Commission reported in 1997 [1] CPJ 559. In the decision reported in 1 [2009] CPJ 123 it has been held by the National Commission that returning of the pledged documents shall be part of the services to be rendered by the Bank. In the decision reported in I [2009] CPJ 109 it has been held relying on the decision of Apex Court reported in II [2000] CPJ II that a bank lending money taking jewels on pledge is a service provider money taking jewels on pledge is a service provides. Therefore a complaint is maintainable when there is deficiency in service. Here the complainant’s case is that the opp.party has charged exorbitant interest which is deficiency in service and therefore in the light of the decision referred to above we hold that this complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable.. Another contention of the opp.party is that this complaint is barred by limitation. It is argued that the loan was taken on 16.5.06 ie after expiry of one year and so it is barred under the provisions of Kerala Money Lenders Act. Sec. 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act prescribes a period of limitation of 2 years . Admittedly the loan was taken on 16.5.06 and so the complaint filed on 5.5.08 before this Forum is within 2 years and so the complaint is not barred by limitation as contended by the opp.party. Points found accordingly. POINT:II The case of the complaint is that the opp.party has charged exhorbitant interest than the admissible interest. According to the opp.party as per the agreement the complainant has to remit the principal amount with interest @ 15% within 3 months Ext.P1 is the receipt produced by the complainant and Ext. D1 is its counterfoil. Neither in Ext.P1 nor in Ext. D1 the rate of interest is shown. DW.1 in cross examination admitted that the rate of interest is not shown either in Ext.P1 or in Ext. D1. No other material worth believable was also produced to establish that the agreed rate of interest is 15%. DW.1 admitted in cross examination page 2 that no notice was issued to the complainant specifying the percentage of interest or the total amount including interest According to DW.1 enuA tmk]kilR igkr\SelX Le\Selqlnk dr\eUk}yjH Lmjv\vk Srl]j fkd eyB\Bksdlmk]kr\rfk; Admittedly the opp.party is functioning as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank or India. No material was produced before us to show that the opp.party is entitled to realize any interest in excess of the interest prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. In the absence of any such material we hold that the opp.party not entitled to realize only 12% interest per annum. It is argued that Ext.D1 agreement was for on e year. But it is not so stated in Ext. D1. DW.1 has also admitted that it is not so stated in Ext. D1 . To use his own words “Qgk iG,f\sf dlhliPj]kxxjH ehjC Lmv\vk fjgjsd tmk]nsar\rk Ext D1 Hdlnkr\rjh\h. It is also pertinent to note that signature of complainant was obtained in blank columns. The counsel for the complainant would argue that obtaining signature in blank paper are with a view to fill then subsequently with exhorbitant amount and that the same is unfair trade practice. There is force in that contention. It is submitted by the complainant that he was ready to pay the principal amount with interest as per rules and even now he is ready. The conduct of the opp.party in not returning the pledged gold ornaments to the complainant after receiving the loan amount with interest is deficiency in service. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opp.party to return the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant while availing loan on payment of the principal amount and interest as per the Reserve Bank guidelines. If the opp.party is unable to return the gold ornaments to the complainant the opp.party is directed to pay the value of the gold at the current market rate. The opp.party is further directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs. Dated this the 31st day of October, 2009. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Gopalakrishnan List of documents for the complainant P1. – Receipt for pledge P2. – Demand notice and Publicity note List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Joju K. Varkey List of documents for the opp.parety D1. - Receipt | 
