JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Afsar Hussain against Opposite U/section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct him to receive the permissible interest and principal amount of Rs. 6,000/- & Rs. 30,000/- and to return the golden ornaments of him under Pawn Ticket Nos. 3400 & 3405 and direct the opposite to pay compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he pledged his golden ornaments weighing 19.600 gms and 98.800 gms and obtained loan of Rs. 6,000/- on 21-10-03 and Rs. 30,000/- on 28-10-03 vide Pawn Ticket Nos. 3400 & 3405 respectively from opposite finance. Thereafter on 21-02-09 he requested the opposite to redeem the said pledged ornaments by receiving the loan amount with reasonable interest at the rate of 9% p.a. but opposite not considered his request, he is demanding to pay exorbitant interest with yearly rest, the demand of the opposite is illegal, which is contrary to the provisions of law under Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act, 1961. Thereafter also he approached the opposite several times and requested in writing to settle the account but opposite refused to return the golden ornaments by receiving the loan amount with reasonable interest, accordingly there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite and thereby he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint. 3. Opposite appeared in this case through his Advocate, filed written version by admitting that the golden ornaments weighing 19.6 gms and 98.8 gms vide Pawn Tickets, borrowing the loan amount. It is denied by the opposite that interest demanded by him is illegal. As per the express agreement between the parties and the terms and conditions as noted in the Pawn Tickets, the complainant has to pay agreed rated of interest. The complaint filed by him is barred by limitation and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he pledged various golden ornaments on 21-10-08 and availed loan of Rs. 6,000/- and again he pledged golden ornaments and availed loan of Rs. 30,000/- on 28-10-08 from opposite but at the time of repayment of the said loan amount opposite is demanding to pay exorbitant and illegal interest on the said loan amount and refused to return his golden ornaments he requested to take reasonable and legal interest under the loan agreement but opposite shown his negligent in-redeeming the golden articles him and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in its service.? 2. Whether complaint is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4, Ex.P-4(a) and Ex.P-4(b) are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of the owner of the Opposite finance was filed, he was noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 marked. 7. In view of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is undisputed facts that the complainant pledged golden ornaments weighing 19.6 & 98.8 gms on different dates with Pawn Ticket Nos. 3400 & 3405 by borrowing loan amount of Rs. 6,000/- & Rs. 30,000/- respectively from the opposite finance. In this case, the complainant contended that opposite finance charged exorbitant interest on the loan amount, he is only liable to pay an amount of Rs. 53,280/-. But opposite finance is ill-legally demanding to pay a total amount of Rs. 87,840/-. 8. According to opposite finance complainant loan transaction is old money transaction there is an express agreement in between the parties, and as per the terms and conditions printed on the back of Pawn Tickets Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2, the complainant has to pay agreed rate of interest. Further it is contended by the opposite that the pledged golden ornaments sold under due intimation to the complainant. Now opposite finance is closed vide intimation to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, as per the letter at Ex.R-1. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is very much clear that transaction in between the complainant and opposite finance is money transaction. The dispute between the parties is related to the rate of interest charged by the opposite-finance. As per the case of complainant opposite finance charged interest more than interest of 9% p.a., it is in contravention with the provisions of 6 of Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act. 10. The opposite finance is contending that the said golden ornaments pledged by the complainant were sold out with notice to the complainant. The complainant has contended that the opposite finance not sold the golden ornaments with intimation to him and the alleged sale is in contravention with the provisions of section 20 of the Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act. 11. The contention of the opposite finance is that, he is closed the business of finance and intimation was given to the Registrar of Co-operative Society vide his letter Ex.R-1. In the above said circumstances, we have to appreciate the provisions of section 6, 11 & 20 of the Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act, interest rate is to be fixed. The validity of sale or otherwise is to be decided, in the light of section 20 of the Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act, to grant the reliefs as prayed by the complainant, we have to pass an order with regard to alleged sale of golden ornaments by the opposite finance. To decide the dispute in between the parties, we have to appreciate the evidences of both the parties in reference to the cross-examination to the witnesses, we have to appreciate the provisions of section 6, 11, and 20 of the Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act. We have to declare the sale of golden ornaments opposite finance is legal or illegal, in the light of the circumstances stated above, we have to see as to whether this Consumer Forum can appreciate such kind of peculiar complex question of facts and laws involved in this case. In this regard we have referred a ruling reported in Part II (1994) CPJ 456 Harbans and Company V/s. State Bank of India, in the above said case their lordships held as were in a case before the Consumer Forum, the case is not a simple case of deficiency of service and it involves complex question of facts and laws, which cannot be satisfactorily determined by the redressal agency in the time frame provided under rules, it would be better for the complainant to seek redressal of his grievances in Civil Court, if so advised. 12. The principles of the above said ruling are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is not a simple case of deficiency in service on the part of opposite, it involves complex questions of facts and laws, we cannot satisfactorily be determined in the time frame provided under the Act, Complainant may get such reliefs from the competent court of law, if so advised, as such we cannot find any deficiency in service on the part of this opposite, accordingly we answered Point No.1 in Negative. POINT NO.2:- 13. In view of the findings on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in his complaint, accordingly this point is also answered in negative. POINT NO.3:- 14. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. All the parties are hereby directed to bear their own respective cost. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-09-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
