Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/82/2012

AMEETH MEHTA, RISHAB FINANCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJA SHERIF - Opp.Party(s)

B. KARTHIKEYAN

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                                              Present: Thiru J. Jayaram,      PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                            Tmt.  P. Bakiyavathi                            MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 82 / 2012

                                                               (Against the Order in C.C. No. 237 / 2006, dated 07-01-2008

on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore)

Dated this the 10^TH day of DECEMBER, 2015

  

Ameeth Mehta,                                   

Rishab Finance,                                  

No.59, Easwaran Kovil Street,                           ..  Appellant / Opposite

Fort, Coimbatore – 641 001                                         Party

 

                   Vs.

 

Raja Sherif,                              

S/o Hanifa,                                         

D.No. 31, H.I.R. Street,                            ..  Respondent / Complainant

Fort, Coimbatore – 641 001                 

        

This Appeal coming up before us for final hearing on 15-10-2015 and on hearing the arguments of appellant’s counsel and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:

 

Counsel for Appellant:     -        M/s B. Karthikeyan

Counsel for Respondent:  -        M/s S. Kumar Devan

 

J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 237 / 2006, dated 07-01-2008, partly allowing the complaint.

 

The case of the complainant is that he pledged a gold chain weighing 11 grams with the opposite party for Rs.3,800/- on 1-7-2003 and he was regular in payment of interest to the opposite party without any delay or default. While so, the complainant received public auction notice from the District-Government Auctioneer informing him that his gold chain would be sold in public auction in the presence of the Tahsildar / Deputy Tahsildar at 11:00 am on 25-02-2005. He did not receive any previous notice from the opposite party for non-payment of interest amount or the principal amount and the complainant was not intimated whether the auction was conducted on 25-02-2005 as mentioned in the public auction notice, at what price the gold chain was sold and to whom it was sold. The auction proceedings were not sent to the complainant. The complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party demanding the details of the auction and the opposite party sent a reply notice containing false allegations. The opposite party did not furnish the particulars as to whom and at what price the chain was sold. All these amount to unfair trade practice and hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite party to return the gold chain weighing 11 grams after collecting the amount of Rs.3,800/- with interest if any and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings and to pay costs of Rs.1,000/-.

 

2.       According to the opposite party, the complainant pledged the gold chain weighing 11 grams for Rs.3,800/- but the complainant did not pay any interest or the principal amount, in spite of sending intimations / communications, and the chain was sold in public auction observing the correct legal procedure, and no unfair trade practice was adopted as alleged by the complainant. 

 

3.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- as total compensation and to pay costs of Rs.1,000/-.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal.

 

4.       The District Forum has observed that the opposite party has followed the due legal procedure and sold the chain in public auction after serving notice to the complainant. Until that stage, things were in order. The District Forum has further held that the opposite party has not taken proper follow up action after selling the chain in auction such as not maintaining the registers and records and withholding the details such as auction amount, the address of the person who purchased the chain in auction etc, and the statement of accounts Ex.A8, the public auction notice Ex.A9, and the receipt issued by the auctioneer Ex.A10 have been sent to the complainant belatedly.

 

5.       It is pertinent to note that the District Forum has held that the opposite party has followed the due procedure and has sold the chain in public auction. We find no material irregularity committed by the opposite party after the auction sale, and therefore we hold that the opposite party has not adopted any unfair trade practice.

 

6.       The District Forum has erred in holding that the opposite party indulged in unfair trade practice in not taking due follow up action, and therefore, the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.

 

7.       In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

8.       The mandatory deposit made by the appellant / opposite party shall be refunded to the appellant / opposite party, along with accrued interest.

 

 

 TMT.  P. BAKIYAVATHI                      J. JAYARAM         

           MEMBER                         PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER