Karnataka

Mysore

CC/09/466

V.N. Vanishree - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Pawn Broker - Opp.Party(s)

15 Dec 2009

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE
No.1542/F, Anikethana Road, C and D Block, J.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagara, (Behind Jagadamba Petrol Bunk), Mysore-570009.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/466

V.N. Vanishree
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

M/s Pawn Broker
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi 2. Sri A.T.Munnoli3. Sri. Shivakumar.J.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J. B.A., L.L.B., - Member CC 466/09 DATED 15.12.2009 ORDER Complainant V.N. Vanishree, 4447/1, Bazaar Street, N.R. Mohalla, Mysore-7. (In person) Vs. Opposite Party M/s Pawn Broker, Rep. by P.M. Surana, St. Mary’ s Road, N.R. Mohalla, Mysore-7. Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service Date of filing of complaint : 11.12.2009 Date of appearance of O.P. : Date of order : 15.12.2009 Duration of Proceeding : PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Sri. A.T.Munnoli, President 1. The complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking a direction to exhibit the pledged articles for identification by the complainant and on failure, to pay the value of the said articles and further to award compensation and cost of the proceedings. 2. Considering the facts alleged in the complaint and the material on record, we have heard the complainant regarding maintainability and perused the records. 3. Now, the point for our consideration is, whether the complaint is maintainable? 4. For the following reasons our finding is in negative. REASONS 5. Apart from the facts that, the complainant pledged the ornaments in the year 2001, as alleged in 4th paragraph of the complaint, legal notice dated 27.01.2007 was issued to the opposite party to discharge the pledged articles, but there was no response. In the prayer column also in the third prayer specifically it is alleged that, the case could have been solved prior to 27.01.2007. Copy of the notice that the complainant had sent to the opposite party, is on record. Hence, considering the said facts alleged in the complaint and the notice in the month of January 2007 itself, the opposite party failed to return the articles of the complainant. In the said notice, the complainant had specifically mentioned that, in case the opposite party failed to return the pledged articles she will approach the Civil and Criminal Court to get back the pledged articles. Admittedly, the opposite party did not comply the said request. In spite of it, the present complaint is filed in the month of December 2009, nearly after 2 years 10 months. In the complaint, in second paragraph, it is alleged that, the complaint is well within 2 years of limitation. How it is within 2 years, is not explained. It is tried to contend that, in the year 2009, notice was sent to the opposite party and hence, the complaint is in time, but as noted here before, at the cost of repetition, in the month of January 2009 itself, as the opposite party did not comply with the demand of the complainant cause of action arose and hence, the complaint now filed is clearly barred by limitation. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the ruling reported in II (2009) CPJ 29 has held that “It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed there under. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.” 7. Even otherwise it is relevant to note that, no specific deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. The relief sought by the complainant is to direct the opposite party to exhibit the pledged articles for identification by the complainant. No such obligation on the part of the opposite party is pointed out by the complainant. It is different aspect, if at all the complainant has paid entire loan with interest and in spite of it, the opposite party failed to return the pledged articles then it can be said that there is deficiency in service and opposite party may be directed to return the pledged articles. At the cost of repetition, the first prayer made by the complainant is to direct the opposite party to exhibit the pledged articles. Then, it is further prayed that, if the opposite party failed to produced the articles, it may be directed to pay the value of the articles. This question will arise only after the complainant pay the entire loan with interest. 8. For the following reasons, we are of the opinion that, the complain is not maintainable and accordingly, we pass the following order. ORDER 1. The complaint is dismissed with an observation that, the complainant is at liberty to take legal action against the opposite party in accordance with law. 2. Give a copy of this order to complainant according to Rules. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 15th December 2009) (A.T.Munnoli) President (Y.V.Uma Shenoi) Member (Shivakumar.J.) Member




......................Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi
......................Sri A.T.Munnoli
......................Sri. Shivakumar.J.