Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.51,418/- being the difference of value of gold, RS.21,600/- being the value of gold reduced by weight, Rs.57,480/- interest on the above amounts @24% pa., Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant obtained loans from the opposite party on           23-12-05, 23-02-06, 17-07-06 and 03-08-06 by pledging gold ornaments weighing 66 grams, 60 grams, 28 grams and 20 grams respectively.   In all the complainant obtained Rs.70,000/- on those dates from the opposite party.   Due to negligence of the opposite party theft took place in the opposite party bank on 26-12-06 and gold weighing about 46.5 kgs was stolen and it was published in the newspaper.   On 30-05-07 the opposite party refunded Rs.57,125/- after adjusting loan amount of Rs.70,000/- plus Rs.3,245/- towards interest calculating gold rate at Rs.870/- per gram.     The complainant objected and protested to the value and the weight calculated by the opposite party.    The existing market rate of gold on 30-05-07 was Rs.1200/- per gram.   The opposite party reduced 18 grams of gold from total quantity. The complainant thus sustained loss of Rs.73,080/- as on 30-05-07.   The police recovered part of lost gold ornaments and deposited in the Court at Narasaraopet.   On 26-03-10 as per recitals of the publication published in Eenadu daily, Guntur edition that the opposite party paid entire amount to the borrowers who pledged gold ornaments. The complainant issued notice on              03-05-10 demanding the opposite party to repay the loss of Rs.1,23,246/- as oral demands did not fructify.   The opposite party kept quite though received notice.  The complainant suffered mentally, physically and financially on the attitude of the opposite party.  The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The opposite party remained exparte.

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked on behalf of the complainant.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:  

1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
3. Whether the complaint is barred by time?
4. To what relief?

6.   POINT No.3:-    The registry raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint on the aspect of limitation. The complaint was numbered on hearing the counsel subject to limitation. The complainant did not take recourse to Section 24 (A)(2) of Consumer Protection Act inspite of such objection.  The counsel for the complainant relied on the paper publication dated 26-03-10 marked as Ex.A-9 which reads as follows:

7.     The above publication revealed that the opposite party bank paid the value, taking the value mentioned while granting loan excluding stones.    The above publication further revealed that the matter is still pending in the Court.   The complainant did not brought to the notice of the Court regarding the order passed in the criminal case regarding disposal of property.             

8.      The relevant portion in the complaint is extracted below for better appreciation:

“On 30-05-07 the Bank authorities of the opposite party had refunded an amount of Rs.57,125/- in total after adjusting the loan amount and interest i.e., Rs.70,000/- + Rs.3,245/-, though the complainant objected and protext regarding the value and weight calculated by the bank authorities.”

9.    The above averments clearly revealed that the complainant took Rs.57,125/- under protest. Therefore the limitation starts from                 30-05-07 and the complaint has to be filed on or before 30-05-09.   But the complaint was filed on 28-10-10. It is not the case of the complainant that the gold ornaments recovered were given to the opposite party.  

10.  The counsel for the complainant relied on the decision reported in Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. B.K. Sood 2006 CTJ (1) (SC) wherein it was held

        “Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (referred to as the Act hereafter) expressly cast a duty on the Commission admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfied the District Forum, the State Commission or National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen”.

11.   The recovery or otherwise of gold ornaments by the police   had nothing to do with the complaint as it was based on the difference of value of gold as on 30-05-2007.  Therefore the above decision in our considered opinion is no way help the complainant. 

        Under those circumstances, the said publication in no way saves limitation.   We therefore opine that the complaint is barred by limitation and answer this point against the complainant.  

12.   POINTS 1 & 2:-   Under Exs.2 to A-7 the complainant valued the gold @Rs.870/- per gram for the weight of 26 grams (28 gms), 54 gms (57.500 gms), 16 gms (18.50 gms), 55 gms (66 grams) respectively.    It appears to us that the opposite party deducted certain weight towards value of stones to which the complainant never objected.    Therefore the complainant cannot claim the value of gold for the weight of stones.    As the complaint is barred by limitation the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for.  We therefore answer these points against the complainant.  

13.   POINT No.4:-    In View of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

        Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 12^th day of              September, 2011.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

    DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:     NIL 

 PRESIDENT