By G. Yadunadhan, President:

            The case of the complainant is that he pledged gold ornaments in the opposite party’s firm under various heads and dates.  On 10.3.2006, complainant received a postal card from the opposite party, which contains a direction to pay the amount borrowed along with interest and take back the ornaments.  Complainant  approached the opposite party on several occasions and the opposite party told that the accounts are being scrutinized and thereafter the complainant would be informed the exact amount payable by him.  On 7.6.2006 complainant went to the opposite party’s office, then they gave him some lame excuses without informing him the correct amount payable. Complainant has arranged full amount to discharge the liability and take back the ornaments pledged with the opposite party.  But the opposite party was not ready to accept the aforesaid amount.   On 14.6.2006 complainant caused to sent a registered lawyer notice, for which opposite party failed to send reply.  There is no response from the opposite party till this date.

            Opposite party entered in appearance and filed version.  Opposite party admitted the pledging of jewels; but dispute is its weight.  Opposite party denied the post card dated 10.3.2006 and it was not related to any of the loan transactions and also denied the averments of visits on several occasions to the bank.  According to the rules governing the gold loan, the loan is to be closed or renewed on the close of three months, failing which penal interest at the rate of 9 per cent will be charged and if not redeemed within a period of one year it will be auctioned.  The company has no duty or responsibility to keep the pledged items of defaulters indefinitely.  The only response made by the complainant is the lawyer notice dated 14.6.2006, that too after close of one year, for which no reply deserves according to the opposite party.  Complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

            Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant.  RW1 was examined and Exts. B1 to B8 were marked on the side of the opposite party.

            Points for consideration:  Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?  If so, what is the relief and cost?

            Opposite party admits the pledging of jewels.  At the time of pledging opposite party used to supply receipts.  Receipts were produced and same were marked as Ext.B1, B2 and B3, which contains the terms and conditions of pledging and return of ornaments.  2^nd condition clearly shows that after 13^th month if the loan is not cleared, without any information the opposite party will auction the pledged jewels.  This was clearly written in the backside of the receipts and that too in the language known to the petitioner.  The case of the opposite party is that in sending intimation to the customers, they have separate format and not like the Ext. A1.  This Forum believes such contentions and no evidentiary value can be given to the Ext. A1.  Since it contain no signature or loan number or even a date it is the duty of the opposite party to inform their customers regarding the expiry of the period of pledging items.  In the present case it is duly informed about the liability of the pledged ornaments.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

            Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the complaint.  Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Pronounced in open Court this the 19^th day of January 2009.

                        Sd/-President.                                                         Sd/-Member.

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1        Postal card sent by the opposite party to the complainant.

A2            Registered lawyer notice dated 14.6.2006 sent by the complainant to the opposite party.

A3        Postal acknowledgement card.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

B1         Gold loan receipt  dated 20.2.2004 for Rs.45000/-.

B2         Gold loan receipt  dated 23.4.2004 for Rs.12000/-.

B3         Gold loan receipt  dated 22.7.2004 for Rs.20000/-.  

B4         Postal acknowledgement card.

B5         Details of Gold loan sanctioned to the complainant.

B6         Postal acknowledgement card.

B7         Postal acknowledgement card.

B8            Unclaimed Regd.letter sent by the opposite party to the complainant.

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1            Shakir.M.K., S/o. M.K. Ali – Complainant.

Witness examined for the opposite party:

RW1     C.T. Mathew, s/o. C.M. Thomas, Chunkapurakal House, Kunduthode P.O.

-/True copy/-

Sd/-President

(Forwarded/By Order)

Senior Superintendent.