By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

.           The first complainant is the wife of Late Mr. Krishnadas and complainants 2, 3 and second opposite party are the children of the Late krishnadas. The second opposite party is the daughter of Mr. Krishnadas born in his first wife. Mr. Krishnadas died on 29/09/2018 and complainants 1 to 3 and second opposite party are the legal heirs of the Krishnadas.

2.         Mr. Krishnadas pledged certain gold ornaments before the first opposite party and availed loan of Rs.1,30,000/-. After expiry of Mr. Krishnadas, the first complainant received notice from the first opposite party Bank directing to close the gold loan and accordingly approached the first opposite party and then it was told that if the first complainant is prepared to remit 1,39,025/- rupees as the loan and interest, they are prepared to release the gold in favor of the first complainant. Hence the first complainant remitted the amount and requested to release the pledged gold ornaments. Then the complainant was directed to produce legal heirship certificate of Mr. Krihsnadas and when it was produced the second opposite party was also found as legal heir. The first complainant approached the second opposite party for the signature for filing application before the first opposite party to release the gold ornament. But the second opposite party demanded to settle all other disputes between them and only thereafter she was prepared to sign for the releasing application.  

3.         There after the complainant approached the first opposite party bank and they said that they are only prepared to release the gold ornaments  after obtaining signatures of all legal heirs including second opposite party and they issued a document stating that gold loan account stands closed and items kept under safe custody.

4.         The submission of the first complainant is that she repaid the loan amount after obtaining loans from various persons and the amount was remitted before the first opposite party under the impression that they will release the gold ornaments in her favor. The first opposite party mislead the first complainant and instructed to close the loan amount. The first complainant is under pressure from the persons from whom she organized the loan amount to close the loan account.  Hence the prayer of the complainants is to direct the first opposite party to release the gold ornaments and also to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

5.         On admission of the complaint notice was issued to both the opposite parties.   The notice to the first opposite party Bank was received and they entered appearance. The notice to the second opposite party was intimated on 28/07/2022 and thereafter on 29/07/2022 and when the case was called on 22/08/2022, opposite party No.2 not turned up and so set exparte and the case was posted to 16/09/2022. On 16/09/2022 the complainant and opposite party No.1 represented before the Commission and submitted chance for settlement. Hence opposite party No.1 was directed to appear in person and also repeated notice to opposite party No.2 to appear in person on 30/09/2022.  On that day complainant and opposite party No.1 represented but opposite party No.2 not present in person. Hence the complaint was posted for affidavit of the complainant to 07/10/2022.  On 07/10/2022 the first complainant and opposite parties appeared in person. The second opposite party was not ready to settle the dispute. The complainant filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A3. The second opposite party filed IA 676/2022 to set aside the exparte order dated 22/08/22, stating that she was not served notice from commission and so time is to be allowed for filing version.  The second opposite party submitted that she received notice issued from this commission only on 22/09/2022 and so there is no latches in appearing before the commission and so the prayer in IA 676/2022 to be allowed.   The second opposite party presented the notice along with envelop issued from this commission to prove her correct address. On perusal of the envelop produced by the second opposite party and the notice retuned by the postman after proper intimation on 28/07/2022 and 29/07/2022, it was found are same. Hence, we do not find merit in the submission of the second opposite party and the counsel, to set aside the exparte order passed in the matter on 22/08/2022. It is to be noted that the second opposite party has not turned up despite receipt of proper notice and not filed version within the statutory period.

6.         The complainant filed affidavit and the documents. The documents are marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext A1 is copy of particulars of memorandum in respect of gold ornaments deposited as in security dated 10/07/2018.  Ext. A2 is photograph taken during marriage function. Ext. A3 is copy of legal hire ship certificate dated 13/07/2020 issued from Taluk office, Kozhikode.

7.         The case of the complainant stands proved through the affidavit and documents Ext. A1 to A3.  There is no contra evidence against the case of the complainant. None of the opposite parties filed version or affidavit in the matter and no documents produced on the side of opposite parties.  

8.         The first complainant submitted in the affidavit that the gold ornament pledged by her diseased husband before the first opposite party was originally belongs to the daughter and the same was entrusted for pledging in a particular situation.    The gold ornament is worth 66gms and the value of the gold at present is Rs.4,785 per gram. The petitioners and second opposite party are being legal heirs, they are entitled ¼ th share of the gold ornaments, and so the 2^nd opposite party is entitled ¼ share of gold ornament. It is also submitted that the first complainant remitted 1,38,999/- rupees towards the gold loan and so the second opposite party is also liable to pay ¼   of the loan amount also i.e 34750/- rupees. The second opposite party is bound to share Rs 34750/-towards the loan amount.  Hence the submission of the first complainant is that the second opposite party is entitled for the value of 16.5gm gold after deducting the loan share of Rs.34750/-. The first complainant assessed the share of the second opposite party as rupees 44202.5/- and which the first complainant is prepared to pay to the second opposite party. The Commission finds that there is merit in the contention of the complainant and we hold that the second opposite party is entitled for Rs.44202.5 i.e., after deducting 34,750/- rupees from the value of 16.5gm gold rupees 78,952.5/-. In short, the commission finds that complainants 1,2,3 and second opposite party are equally entitled for the pledged gold ornaments and all are equally liable to repay the loan amount also.

9.         The first opposite party after closing the loan amount, kept gold articles under safe custody since want of proper documents to release the article. The first complainant has got a grievance that the first opposite party had agreed to release the article on closing the loan amount. But there is no document to show for the submission of the complainants and we do not find any deficiency in service in not releasing the gold articles to the complainant in the absence of proper documents.

10.       Considering the entire aspects we allow this complaint as follows:-

1. The first opposite party is directed to release the gold ornaments involved in this complaint Ext A1 in favour of the first complainant on approaching with authorization letter from the second and third complainants and also on production of certificate stating that the share entitled by the second opposite party i.e., Rs.44,202.5/- has been deposited before the district Commission forthwith.
2. The complainants are directed to deposit ¼  share of second opposite party Rs.44,202.5/- before this Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
3. The parties shall comply this order forthwith.

Dated this 10^th  day of October, 2022.

Mohandasan  K., President

                                  PreethiSivaraman C., Member

                                   Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A3

Ext.A1: Copy of particulars of memorandum in respect of gold ornaments deposited as

in security dated 10/07/2018.

Ext.A2: Photograph taken during marriage function.

Ext A3: copy of legal hire ship certificate dated 13/07/2020 issued from Taluk office,

Kozhikode.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil

                                      Mohandasan  K., President

PreethiSivaraman C., Member

     Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member