Debi Sengupta,  Presiding Member.

This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainants that Ajit Kumar Dutta, the husband of complainant no. 1 (now deceased) took a loan of sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- and Rs. 1,29,000/- only against the mortgaged of gold ornaments during his life time and accordingly gold mortgage A/c no. 50085 and 50086 were allotted respectively on 14.09.2017 regarding that issue two separate gold mortgaged challan/ receipt to that effect and he did not repay the loan amount due to his sudden death in respect of said two gold loan in due time and after getting information and proposal from the opposite party the complainants paid the entire loan amount with interest of said gold loan A/c no. 50085 and 50086 on 2.08.2018 and 26.12.2018 and after receiving such entire amount he had closed the said gold ornament A/c no. 50085 and 50086 and opposite party endorsed ‘account closed’ and at the time of closing the said gold loan the opposite party assured to return the said gold ornaments in favour of the complainants but the opposite party did not keep their words and thereafter with an ugly motive to grab the whole ornaments by resorting to strategy another subject matter which is not at all involved in connection with abovementioned two mortgage loan and without delivery or return the gold ornaments they retain the same malafidely and inspite of repeated demands from the side of the complainants the opposite party did not pay any heed to that request and then the complainants send a legal notice to the opposite party through his their ld. Advocate on 2.03.2019 and 1.10.2019 and the opposite party replied on 10.03.2019 and 23.10.2019 and the cause of action arose on 14.09.2017, 2.08.2018, 26.12.2018, 2.03.2019, 1.10.2019 and when the time of 7 days from the date of receiving the said legal notice was over and is still continuing.

Complainants filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to deliver or return the entire gold ornaments as per schedule below worth of value of Rs. 16,00,000/- and to pass an order restraining the opposite party not to sale out the schedule mentioned gold ornaments to any other third party and also not to change the nature and character of the said gold ornaments as mentioned in the schedule and to pay sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and to pay all costs of the suit and any other order/ orders as this ld. Forum seen just and proper.

            The complainants filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.

            Complainants filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainants are taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainants heard in full.

            From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainants are the consumer of the opposite party or not?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the points are taken together for easiness of the discussions of this case.

1. In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant here in is a consumer of the opposite parties.
2. Both the complainant and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. Considering the claim amount of complainant as per prayer of the petition of complainant it appears that those are not exceeding 20,00,000/-. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3. The complainants state that Ajit Kumar Dutta, the husband of complainant no. 1 (now deceased) and father of complainant no. 2 took a loan of Rs. 1,10,000/- and 1,29,000/- only against the mortgage of gold ornaments during his life time and accordingly gold mortgage A/C no. 50085 and 50086 was allotted respectively on 14.09.2017 and the opposite party issued two separate gold mortgage challan in favour of Ajit Kumar Dutta and unfortunately said Ajit Kumar Dutta died on 18.01.2018 leaving behind the complainants as his legal heirs.

The dispute cropped up when due to the sudden death of said Ajit Kumar Dutta the two gold loan could not paid in due time but after getting information the complainants paid the entire loan amount with interest in respect of said gold loan A/c no. 50085 and 50086 on 2.8.2018 and 26.12.2018 and after receiving such entire amount the opposite party closed the said gold ornament loan A/c no. 50085 and 50086 and thereby the opposite party endorsed account closed. At the time of closing the said gold loan the opposite party assured to return the said gold ornament favour of the complainants, but surprisingly the opposite party did not keep his words and thereafter with an ugly motive to grab the whole ornaments by resorting to strategy another subject matter which is not at all involved in connection with the above mentioned two mortgage loan and without delivery or return the gold ornaments as mentioned in the schedule.

In view of the facts and circumstances it is crystal clear that the opposite party did not provide service to the complainants. The act and conduct of the opposite party tantamount to gross negligence to perform duty. The complainants being the consumer of the opposite party who have highly prejudiced by unlawful, illegal and arbitrary act. The activities of the opposite party to the complainants willfully negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainants being a bona fide consumer under the C.P. Act and is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

So, it is a fit case to hold that the complainants have proved the deficiency of service against the opposite party in this connection to prove this case some documents have been filed by the complainants i.e.

1. Xerox receipt copy of A/c no. 50085 and 50086,
2. Xerox copy of death certificate,
3. A/c closed endorsement of both account,
4. Copy of legal notice dt. 2.3.2019 and 1.10.2019,
5. Photocopy of reply,
6. BNA,
7. Evidence on affidavit.

Notice to the opposite party served in the instant case but though appeared they did not filed W/V. So, the proceeding runs ex parte against the opposite party.

Hence,

it is

ordered

that the case no. C.C. 190 of 2019 and the same is allowed ex parte with a litigation cost of Rs. 6000/-.

The opposite party is directed to deliver or return the entire gold ornaments as per schedule worth of value of Rs. 16,00,000/-.

The opposite party is further directed to pay an award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) only to be paid by the opposite party to the complainants.

The above directions will be complied within 45 days from the date of passing this order.

At the event of failure to comply with the order the opposite party shall pay cost @ Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.