Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the Opposite party to redeem the golden ornaments pledged by receiving the loan amount and also pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that, on 20.09.2001 he had pledged golden ear studs and golden ring weighing 16.400 grams with Opposite party under bill No.514 for Rs.4,000/- and at the time the value was Rs.16,000/-. The complainant was paying interest at the rate of 2% per month regularly. Though the complainant approached the Opposite party several times and requested to receive the loan amount with balance interest and to return the golden jewels, the Opposite party went on postponing the same on one or the other grounds. Therefore, the complaint got issued legal notice dated 29.01.2008 and the Opposite party has sent the reply on 07.02.2008 stating that the gold ornaments have been redeemed by the complainant. Though actually it is not so. The redemption receipt is created and concocted by the Opposite party and therefore the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service and hence, the present complaint is filed. 3. The Opposite party has filed version admitting the pledged gold articles by the complainant for Rs.4,000/- on 20.09.2001. According to the Opposite party, the complainant paying principal amount of Rs.4,000/- and interest of Rs.1,225/- discharged the loan and redeemed the articles on 05.03.2003 and taken back the pledged articles and even the complainant has put the signature on the pawn ticket at the time of receiving the said articles. In order to have wrongful gain frivolous complaint is filed. The complaint is barred by limitation. The Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service, therefore the complaint is not maintainable to any relief and complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 4. During trial, the complainant is examined as CW.1 and Ex.C.1 to C.3 are marked. On behalf of the Opposite party Ex.R.1(a) & R(b) are marked. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? 2) Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- REASONS 8. POINTS No.1 to 3:- The undisputed facts are that the complainant had pledged the golden items for Rs.4,000/- on 20.09.2001. As per the pawn ticket Ex.C.1, the gross weight of the golden two items is 16.400 grams and the net weight is 10 grams and the value is shown as Rs.4,800/-. Now the complaint is filed for redeeming the golden articles after issuing the legal notice Ex.C.2 on 29.01.2008. As per Ex.C.1 the time of redemption is 12 months, till 29.01.2008 the complainant has not issued any notice demanding for redemption of the pawned items. As per rule 20(+7) of Karnataka Pawn Brokers Rules 2005, pawn ticket produced after 3 years by the pawner shall not be entertained. Though according to the complainant he was paying interest regularly, but no document is forthcoming. Therefore, the complaint is hopelessly time barred, because the cause of action has arisen after one year from 20.09.2001 and complaint should have been filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action as per section 24(A) of C.P.Act. Therefore, we hold that the complaint is barred by limitation. 9. According to the complainant, though he was ready to discharge the loan with interest, the Opposite party to return the pledged articles by accepting the amount, the Opposite party went on dodging. But according to the Opposite party, the complainant has discharged the loan and received back the gold items and has put signature to the pawn ticket and his signature is Ex.R.1(b). Ex.R.1 is the pawn ticket book. The complainant admits his signature Ex.R.1(a), but has denied the signature which is on the back of Ex.R.1 (i.e. Ex.R.1(b)). If we compare the signature Ex.R.1(a) and Ex.R.(b) and his signatures in the complaint and vakalath and affidavit, it cannot be said that he has not put signature to the pawn ticket and has not received the golden articles and it cannot be said that Ex.R.1 signature is created. The contention is that if actually the Opposite party has returned the golden articles receiving the amount, he should have collected the pawn ticket Ex.C.1. But according to the Opposite party, in certain cases they return the articles on bonafide trust. Significantly as per the Government Pawn Brokers Rules 2005, a pawn ticket produced after three years by the pawner shall not be entertained. As per Ex.R.1(b), the articles was redeemed and taken back on 05.03.2003. Now after only 5 years the legal notice was issued claiming the redemption of gold articles and therefore, the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and it is established that the complainant has taken back the gold articles pledged with the Opposite party by discharging the loan and Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for. 10. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 29th day of August 2008). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER) ctj
