Taken up through video conferencing.

1.       This petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 impugning the Order dated 16.11.2017 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh in appeal no. 629 of 2017 arising out of the Order dated 13.06.2017 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Durg in complaint no. 571 of 2016.

2.       The petition was filed in 2017. A perusal of the proceedings shows that due to a dilatory approach by the petitioner, the hearing on admission has been delayed by about 04 years.

That being as it may be, we have heard arguments from the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material on record.

3.       The dispute relates to auction of the pledged gold of the complainant (the petitioner herein) on defaulting in making repayment of a loan taken from the opposite party (the respondent herein).

4.       The District Commission dismissed the complaint. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. This petition has been filed apropos concurrent findings of the two fora below.

5.       Vide its Order of 16.11.2017 the State Commission has determined that the complainant took a loan from the opposite party by pledging gold, he defaulted in making re-payment of the installments due, notice was given by the opposite party to the complainant to make payment of the amount due, when the amount due was not repaid, the pledged gold was sold in public auction and intimation thereof was given to the complainant. (para 13 of the State Commission’s Order refers)

The State Commission has accordingly held that the Order passed by the District Commission in dismissing the complaint was just and proper and did not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality. (para 14 of the State Commission’s Order refers.)

6.       In his submissions learned counsel has not disputed that the complainant had defaulted in making repayment of the loan. He has also not made any allegation that there was any financial malfeasance per se on the part of the opposite party while conducting the public auction in which the complainant’s gold was sold. The only point argued is that notice of the auction was not given to the complainant. This question of fact has been determined by the two fora below in favour of the opposite party, both the fora have determined that notice of the auction was in fact given.

7.       There appears no palpable misappreciation of evidence by the two fora below, there appears no jurisdictional error, or a point of law erroneously adjudged, or miscarriage of justice. No good ground to warrant interference by exercise of our revisional jurisdiction is forthcoming.

8.       The petition is dismissed.

9.       The Registry is requested to immediately send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition. The stenographer is also requested to immediately upload this Order on the Commission’s website.