Kerala

Wayanad

CC/10/231

Sajan.P.Ibrahim,Tele Screen,Ayodhya Complex,Sulthan Bathery. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,Manapuram Financers,Vanitha Golden Tower,Sulthan Bathery. - Opp.Party(s)

31 May 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/10/231
 
1. Sajan.P.Ibrahim,Tele Screen,Ayodhya Complex,Sulthan Bathery.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Manager,Manapuram Financers,Vanitha Golden Tower,Sulthan Bathery.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:


 

The gist of the complaint is as follows:-

The Complainant pledged a gold chain weighing 16.6 grams for an amount of Rs.15,500/- on 08.01.2009. He omitted to take back the ornament on the due date. When enquired at the Opposite Party's Office the ornament was found to be auctioned in the month of June.


 

2. The Complainant has obtained only an amount of Rs.15,000/- on 16.2 grams of gold. 16.6 grams of gold costs about Rs.30,000/- at the time of filing the complaint. The Complainant came in possession of this gold chain in connection with this wedding and he never interested to sell the ornament. The Complainant has given his address and phone number to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party's office is adjacent to the establishment run by the Complainant. Even then the Opposite Party has not given any notice or information regarding the auction of the ornament. This is grave deficiency in service on the side of the Opposite Party and caused financial loss and mental agony to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Party to give an amount of Rs.10,000/- as the price of auctioned ornament after deducting the loan amount and interest. He also prays for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony and financial loss.


 

3. The Opposite Party filed version and admitted the pledge of ornament. The period of loan was only 30 days. It is also admitted that the ornament was auctioned by the Opposite Party since the complainant has failed to take back the ornament even after the receipt of the notices and registered notice issued by the Opposite Party. The auction was conducted on 21.05.2009. The amount due as on 21.05.2010 was Rs. 23,118/- and the gold was auctioned for Rs.20,929/-. Thus the Complainant is liable to pay further amount of Rs.2,189/- with interest towards the loan. The Complaint is filed to get rid of the liability. Hence the Opposite Party prays for an order dismissing the complaint.


 

4. The Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. The Opposite Party filed proof affidavit and documents were marked as Exts.B1 to B10 on the side of the Opposite Party.


 

5. The matters to be decided are:-

  1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

  2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief?

6. Point No.1:- The Complainant's main allegation is that the gold is auctioned without any notice or intimation to him. But Exts. B2, B4(a), B8 show that notices were sent to the Complainant regarding the matter in dispute. Ext.B2 is an acknowledgment receipt. Ext.B4(a) is postal receipt for letter sent to the Complainant on 09.02.2009. Ext.B8 is the postal voucher and Complainant's name is shown in the list to whom communication is sent by the Opposite Party. More over Ext.A1 shows that the period of loan is only 30 days. The auction was held only on 21.05.2009. The Complainant enquired about the gold only on 25.06.2010 ie, after about 1 ½ year. The Complainant was evidently negligent or careless about the gold and loss cannot be attributed to any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.


 

7. Point No.2:- As there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief.

Hence the complaint is dismissed.


 

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31st May 2011.

Date of filing:30.10.2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

 

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.


 


 

A P P E N D I X


 

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Sajan. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Divya. K.M. Branch Manager, Manapuram General Finance,

Sulthan Bathery.

 

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Lawyer Notice. dt:08.07.2010.

A2. Postal Receipt. dt:08.07.2010.

A3. Acknowledgment.

A4. Reply Notice. dt:14.07.2010.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1. Receipt. dt:18.01.2009.

B2. Acknowledgment.

B3. Notice.

B4. Due Notice Listing as on 09.02.2009.

B4(a) Postal Receipts dt:09.02.2009.

B5. Notice.

B6. List of letters under UCP as on February 14,2009.

B7. Notice. dt:08.01.2010.

B8. Copy of Postal Journal ( 1 page)

B9. Copy of Reply Notice. dt:14.07.2010.

B10. Auction Details.

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.