By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> Gist of the Complaint is as follows:<br /> <br /> <br /> The Complainant availed the gold loan of Rs.18,000/- from the Opposite party's Bank on 18.4.2001 pledging 66 gms of gold. The terms of pledge was to remit the principle and interest on monthly wise till the completion of the liability. The repayment of the gold loan was not done in the scheduled time or the pledging was not renewed. The Complainant was served notice and up on which the Opposite party approached the Complainant. On the request of the Complainant, the Opposite party granted extension of time for renewal up to 31.1.2003. Before the expiry of the extended time, on 14.1.2003 the Complainant approached the Opposite Party in order to pay the liable amount and to get back pledged gold ornaments . In the utter surprise of the complainant the Opposite party informed him that the gold ornaments was sold in auction.<br /> <br /> <br /> -2-<br /> <br /> The Opposite party was issued notice and version filed on their appearance . The contention of the Opposite party is that the gold loan was issued agreeing up on the terms and conditions. As per norms stipulated by the Opposite party the Complainant was permitted to repay the principle and interest on monthly wise. The norms were impertinently discarded by the Complainant the principle and interest was not paid by the Complainant in the prescribed time. In the default of payment and non release of the security deposited, the Opposite party sent notice on 08.7.2001 and there after another notice was sent on 9.10.2001 relinquishing the period of pledging. Even after these two notices the Complainant was not ready to take back the gold ornaments or not renewed the loan. Again on 11.4.2002 the Opposite party sent a registered notice showing that without any further information the gold ornaments that are kept in security would be sold in auction. The inadvertent attitude of the Complainant the Opposite Party sent the deposited gold ornaments to the Head Office on 27.11.2002 in order to sell it in auction to realise the amount. The other inferences of the Complainant that further time was given for renewal of the loan and auction of the gold ornaments was done before the expiry of the extent time that all are denied by the Opposite party. <br /> <br /> Points that are to be considered :-<br /> 1.Whether gold loan and the dispute upon which is a consumer dispute?<br /> 2.Whether the Opposite Party granted any extension of time to renew the gold loan?<br /> 3.Is the Complainant entitled for any compensation?.<br /> 4.What order as to costs?.<br /> <br /> Point No.1<br /> The Complainant was examined as PW1, the Pass book issued by the Opposite Party towards the gold loan is marked as Ext.A1, the registered notice sent by the Opposite Party to the Complainant is marked as Ext.A2. The Opposite party did not render any oral evidence. <br /> (Contd..... 3 )<br /> -3-<br /> <br /> The Ext.A1 shows that the gold was pledged under the condition that Complainant is having the right to renew the loan on payment of amount in installments. The principle and the interest can be paid in such away. On examination of PW1 it is admittedly seen that he availed the loan amount and he is obliged to make payments in installments before the maturity period. Further PW1 deposed in cross examination Ext.A1 -   ]dbp¶ XnbXnIfn  H¶pw Rm³ ]eni  AS¨n«nà ]eni C\¯n Rm³ Hcp XpIbpw CXphsc AS¨n«nà then admittedly according to the PW1 the gold that he pledged was for a period of One year. It is evident from the documents and deposition that the PW1 did not make any repayment within the scheduled time.<br /> <br /> Whether the liability upon the Opposite party comes within the ambit of Consumer Dispute apart from the debtor and creditor relationship. The learned counsel who appeared for the Opposite party urged that transaction comes absolutely under the contract act and the remedy available comes within civil jurisdiction. Supporting the contention of the Opposite party the learned counsel submitted the citation of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Standard Chartered Bank V/S P N Tantia reported III (1997) CPJ (NC) there in the Honorable Commission has specifically stated that the rights and duties of the pledger and pledgee stands aloof from the consumer protection act. Opposite Party also filed the copy of the Order of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Trivandrum Appeal No.743/1994 Muthoot Bankers V/S Udhayakumar there in the Honorable State Commission clearly held that the relationship of the pledger and pledgee on the gold ornaments comes within the ambit of creditor and debtor. The remedy reliable is not under Consumer Protection Act. Any how it is also seen that the PW1 was not taken any steps to rescind the liability within the scheduled time the Point No.1 is against the Complainant, the complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act.<br /> (Contd .... 4)<br /> - 4 -<br /> <br /> Point No.2:- <br /> Whether any extension of time is given by the Opposite party is not established by the Complainant. The burden of proof lies upon the Complainant. It is the complaint who has to bring forth the evidence that the time for renewal was granted by Opposite Party and no evidence in that respect is adduced by the complaint. The neighbour of the Complainant is examined as PW2, the witness. Any how being the neighbour and closely connected to the complaint the testimony of PW2 is not reliable.<br /> <br /> The point No.2 is also not established. The Complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The Complaint is dismissed and the parties are directed to bear their respective costs. <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 24th day of August 2007.<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> /True Copy/<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> Witnesses for Complainant:<br /> PW1 Scaria Complainant.<br /> PW2 P. Poulose Agriculturist.<br /> Witnesses for Opposite Party:<br /> Nil.<br /> (Contd..... 5)<br /> - 5 -<br /> <br /> Exhibits for Complainant:<br /> A1. Pass Book dt: 10.04.2001.<br /> A2. Registered Notice. dt: 10.04.2002.<br /> Exhibits for Opposite Party:<br /> Nil.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Compared by:-<br /> M/<br />