COMPLAINT FILED: 27.05.2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON 06.07.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 6TH JULY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1205/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. Manju,<br /> S/o Kari Chike Gowda,<br /> Aged about 33 years,<br /> No.44, 6th Cross, <br /> K.P.Agrahara,<br /> Magadi Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 023.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri. V.Dalapathy<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Sri. Kesariaji Bankers,<br /> Pawn Brokers,<br /> No.1/2, 16th Cross, <br /> K.P.Agrahara,<br /> Magadi Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 023.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri Gopal Singh<br /> <br /> O R D E R S<br /> <br /> SRI B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to collect the principle amount of Rs.7,210/- and to return the pledged gold ornament and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 2. The case of the complainant is to be stated in brief is that:<br /> <br /> The complainant pledged one gold chain with button kambi 23 grams 100 mgs with OP and she has barrowed a loan of Rs.7,210/- after deducting interest on 22.10.2003. The complainant was ready to redeem her gold chain and visited OP shop number of time, but OP not properly responded. Once the complainant went to the police station; before the police inspector OP agreed to handover her gold chain within one month. The complainant was ready to pay interest on every due date; OP threatened and advised her not to come to the shop and to go to police station, to get her chain in the station only. The complainant went to the police station; the police advised her to approach the consumer court. Though the complainant went to the OP to get back her gold chain, but OP refused to accept the interest with principle amount of loan. The lawyer notice was served on 03.07.2008 on OP, OP asked the complainant to wait for some time to get back gold chain, but OP on one or other pretext postponing to return the gold chain. The complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP and filed this complaint seeking the reliefs stated above. <br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version admitting that one Manju pledged gold chain with kambi 23.100 grams on 22.10.2003 for Rs.7,210/-, but no interest was deducted. It was agreed and stipulated that the time for redeem was 12 months from the date of pledge. The pawner did not redeem the pledged <br /> item within the period of 12 months and he had never come to OP for redeeming the same. OP has not received any notice from the complainant; there is no cause of action. The relation between the pawner and pawnee is purely a contractual one. That apart redemption is governed by the limitation agreement signed by the parties; the law of limitation bars the redemption of the pledged item beyond 3 years. The complainant without invoking the lawful authorities under the Karnataka Money Lenders Act has come before this Forum with false allegations. This Forum has no jurisdiction in the matter. The notice through advocate sent states the addresses of one Smt. Manju and even in whole body it is addressed as lady; the complaint is by Sri. Manju. OP’s apprehension is some third person by falsely securing in old receipt has made a false claim. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed objection to the version of OP retrating the complaint averments and further stating that the notice dated 03.07.2008 was served on OP. <br /> <br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed affidavit evidence. OP also filed affidavit evidence. <br /> <br /> 6. The complainant and OP filed written arguments. Heard on both sides, points that arise for our consideration: <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved the<br /> deficiency in service on the part of the <br /> OP? <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for<br /> the relief’s claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- To what Order?<br /> 7. We record over findings on the above points: <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Negative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Negative. <br /> <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order. <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 8. The legal notice got issued to the OP on 03.07.2008 through advocate is by one Smt. Manju, but now the complaint filed by is one male person by name Manju. The address in the cause title of the complaint is shown as No.44, 6th Cross, K.P.Agrahara, Magadi Raod, Bangalore. In the legal notice the address of Smt. Manju is shown the same as shown in the cause title of the complaint. The father’s name in the compliant is mentioned as Kari Chike Gowda. The complainant has not stated in the complaint as to the reason why the legal notice was got issued in respect of this disputed transaction through one Smt. Manju and he has also not stated as to how she is related to him. The pawn ticket produced by the complainant does not disclose the details of address of the pawner; it is only shown as ‘Manju’ father’s name is shown as Kari Gowda. In the cause title of the complaint the father’s name of the complaint is shown as Kari chike Gowda. In order to fix the identity of the person who pledged the article under the pawn ticket dated 22.10.2003; the Forum repeatedly directed to keep the complainant present in person, but the complainant failed to appear before the Forum. The ration card copy with memo was filed on 12.01.2010 to prove the identity of the complainant. In the ration card the address of one Manju is shown as No.19, 6th cross, Manjunatha Nagar, Bangalore, but in the cause title of the complaint the address shown is No.44, 6th Cross, K.P.Agrahara, Magadi Road, Bangalore. The complainant has not produced any authenticated record like school certificate or ID card to prove his identity. In view of the same there is some force in the contention of the OP that the pawn ticket of some person has been collected by the complainant and by making use of the same he has come up with this false complaint. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the complainant is not the person who pledged gold ornament under the pawn ticket produced and the legal notice produced is not the notice got issued by him, but the same has been issued by Smt. Manju. <br /> <br /> 9 Even assuming that the pawn ticket dated 22.10.2003 relates to article gold ornament pledged by the complainant; the stipulated period for redemption of the articles was fixed as one year. That period of one year has come to an end on 22.10.2004. The period for redeeming the pledged articles fixed under the pawn ticket is already over long back. The complainant cannot claim any relief at this stage on the basis of the said pawn ticket. Under these circumstances we are of the view that there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 6th day of June 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Snm:<br />