SRI. R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER
The complaint is filed seeking an order directing the opp.parties to return the wedding ring pledged by the complainant or if the pledged ornament has been already auctioned, refund the balance of price of the gold ring along with interest deducting the loan amount and its accrued interest.
The complainant’s case is that he had availed a loan for Rs.3000/-pledging his wedding ring on 4..6..2006 as per Receipt No. GLNo.101505. It is written in the receipt that the last date for remitting interest without any penal interest is 3/10/2008 On 1..10..2008 the complainant went to the opp.party office for remitting the amount with interest and to release the pledged gold ring. The office was seen closed. On enquiry it was found that the opp.party had started a new institution at Ayoor. As directed by the new institution at Ayoor, the complainant approached the opp.party office at Punalur on 1.8.2008, where the applicant had shown the receipt for getting the pledged ring. The opp.party after collecting the receipt threatened him and said that they had sold the ring. On the same day itself the complainant filed a petition before SI of Police, Punalur Station. As a result of the intervention by the Police, opp.party had returned the receipt to the complainant. Then the complainant filed a petition before Chadayamangalam Police. On 4..8..2009, as per the direction of Punalur Police. The opp.party hitherto had not returned the ornament. The sale of pledged ornaments without giving intimation to the complainant is illegal and the act of opp.party amounts to deficiency in service. The opp.party isbound to refund the gold ornament. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting reliefs.
The opp.party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the complainant had availed service by pledging a gold ring and obtained Rs.3000/- on 4..9..06 . The statement that pledged ring was his wedding ring is not true. The complainant had availed the amount with the clear knowledge and after accepting all the conditions of the pledge . The statement made by the complainant in his complaint that 30.10.2008 is the last date for the payment of interest is not correct. It is clearly stated in the receipt given to the complainant that the date in which the interest without penalistation has to be paid is 31..10..2006, The complainant had approached the opp.party only after about 3 years. It is clearly stated in the loan receipt that term of pledge is 3 months and the interest should be paid monthly. The office of the opp.party was transferred to the new building only from the date of 21..10..2008. The transfer of the office also published by Notice in the old building. Even though it is clearly written in the board exhibited in front the opp.party institution, the complainant did not approached the head office in time. When the complainant approached the head office of opp.party at Punalur it was informed to the complainant that the gold ornament was sold as the complainant has not remitted the loan amount along with interest and not taken back the pledged gold ornament or responded to the notice issued by the opp.party. The petitions filed by the complainant before Punalur Police and Chadayamangalam Police was closed as the police officials had convinced the facts. The opp.party holds every right to sell the pledged ornaments if the complainant fails to remit the amount and to take back the items within time as per the agreement. There is no deficiency in service from the part of opp.party.
The complainant filed affidavit He was examined as PW.1. Exts. P1 to P3 marked.
From the side of opp.party, DW.1 was examined. Exts. D1 to D4 marked.
Heard Both sides
The points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opp.party?
2. Reliefs and costs.
Points 1 and 2
Admittedly a gold ring was pledged with the opp.party and the complainant had obtained Rs.3000/- . The complainant had stated in the complaint that the date of pledge was on 4..6..2006 but the opp.party contended that it was on 4..9..2006 , On perusal of Ext.P1 we find that the date of pledge was on 4..9..2006. The complainant also admitted that the date of pledged was stated as 4..6..2006 by mistake. But in the same receipt it was recorded that the last date for payment without penalization is 3..10..2006. The terms of loan shown in the Ext.P1 receipt is 3 months. But in Ext. D1 produced by the opp.party, it is stated as condition No.1 that the maximum period of the loan is only one year Further it is stated that if the complainant fails to take the ornament back after paying the pledge amount and interest within the maximum period of 3 months it will be sold in auction. On perusal of Ext.P1 we find that there is some discrepancies in that document. The maximum period of loan is noted as 3 months in one part and it is stated as one year in another part in the same document . The last date for the payment of interest is noted as 3..10..2006.
According to the complainant he had approached the opp.party on 1..10..2008 for taking back the pledged gold ornament and found that the opp.party’s office was not working there.
The opp.party contented that the allegation of the complainant is false and the opp.party firm was working there. It was shifted to a nearest building from the very next day onwards. To prove this contention the opp.party had produced rent receipt for the period upto 20..10..2008 and marked as Ext. D3 series and Ext. D4. It is also contented that the complainant also failed to report to the head office in time.
The main issue to be considered in this case is that whether the opp.party served any notice to the complainant intimating auction sale of the pledged gold ornament. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the opp.party had not issued a mandatory notice to that effect. Contenting his arguments the learned counsel for the opp.party argued that the opp.party firm auctioned the jewels only after complying all necessary formalities. The first and foremost formality for the auction sale of a pledged ornament is giving necessary intimation to the loanee. While in cross examination of PW.1 the learned counsel for the opp.party put the question that “ th\hlijPrmemjYdab\bxkA elhjv\vln\ opp.party Kgke\emj ijMsfr\rkeyukr\rk? PW.1 answered that “trj]\ Srl}Jc\ Qr\rkA dj}jujh\h;” The opp.party had not produced any document in support of his argument to show that the notice was issued to the complainant While in cross examination of DW.1 has stated that ShhA svu\ukr\rfjrk\ akRe\ SgDlalhA letter consumer rk\ Lu]kr\rfln\ TO SdcjhkA Luv\vj}kn\mk\; Llufjr\ SgD Ke\SelX ssdiCajh\h;” Argument of the opp.party that notice was issued to the complainant is not evidenced with any document. This situation leads to the inference that no such notice was issued to the complainant. We find that there is deficiency in this regard.
The opp.party had not mentioned regarding the rate of interest anywhere in Ext.P1 . The description and the nature of the ornament also was not mentioned in this document. This also amounts to unfair trade practice from the part of opp.party. It is also pertinent to note here that even though the opp.party had stated that he had sold the ornament by auction, no document or not even a statement was produced to show the amount for which the opp.party sold the pledged ornament in auction sale. The complainant had every right to get knowledge regarding the sale amount.
On a detailed verification of the entire documents before us and after hearing both sides we find that there is deficiency in service from the part of opp.party. The points found accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The opp.party is directed to pay the complainant, the balance amount from the present price of 7.5 gm. Gold ring after deducting loan amount Rs.3500/- + interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the period from 4..9..2006 till 1..10..2008 The opp.party is also directed to pay compensation Rs.1000/- and cost Rs.1000/-
The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order.
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2012.
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. – Kochummen
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Receipt for pledge of gold
P2. –Photocopy of complaint dt. 1..8..2009 before Punalur Policestation
P3. – Photocopy of complaint dt. 4..8..2009 before Chadayamangalam
List of witnesses for the opp.party
DW.1. – Alex Thomas
List of documents for the opp.party
D1. – Authorisation letter
D2. – Loan application
D3. – Rent receipts [3 numbers]
D4. – Rent receipt
