Karnataka

Mysore

CC/09/380

Sri. S. Narasimha Moorthy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Manjunatha Jewelry - Opp.Party(s)

K. Ishwar Bhat

15 Oct 2009

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE
No.1542/F, Anikethana Road, C and D Block, J.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagara, (Behind Jagadamba Petrol Bunk), Mysore-570009.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/380

Sri. S. Narasimha Moorthy
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Sri Manjunatha Jewelry
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi 2. Sri A.T.Munnoli

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member CC 380/09 DATED 15.10.2009 ORDER Complainant Sri. S. Narasimha Moorthy S/o late Shankaraiah, No:108, 4th cross, 2nd stage, Boghadi, Telecom layout, Mysore. (By Sri. K. Ishwar Bhat, Advocate) Vs. Opposite Party Sri. Gopala Krishna .D, Proprietor, Sri Manjunatha Jewelry, No:177, Devegowda complex, 2nd shop, Vijayanagara Railway layout, Mysore. Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service Date of filing of complaint : 13.10.2009 Date of appearance of O.P. : Date of order : 15.10.2009 Duration of Proceeding : PRESIDENT MEMBER Sri. A.T.Munnoli, President 1. In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that he has pledged certain ornaments with the opposite party and borrowed loan of Rs.4,500/-. Monthly interest has been paid. The loan has been renewed. The complainant is ready to repay the loan. The complainant approached the opposite party many a times. The opposite party under some pretexts postponed. Even legal notice was sent. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. All these reasons, it is prayed to direct the opposite party to return the pledged ornaments and on failure to pay, the value of the gold. 2. Considering the facts alleged in the complaint, we has heard the learned advocate regarding maintainability and perused the records. 3. Now, we have to consider, whether the complaint is maintainable? 4. For the following reasons, our findings is in negative. REASONS 5. As noted above, the prayer made by the complainant is, to direct the opposite party to return the pledged ornaments and on failure, to pay the present value of the ornaments. It is specifically alleged in the complaint that, he is ready to repay the loan etc.,. In the notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party, copy of which is on record, also there is specific mention that, the complainant is ready to repay the loan of Rs.4,500/-. From this, it is clear that the complainant has not re-paid the loan. In the prayer column as noted above the complainant has not stated that on receipt of the loan from the complainant, opposite party may be directed to return the pledged ornaments. In other words, the complainant has sought the direction against the opposite party to return the pledged ornaments without repaying the loan. 6. Even otherwise, when admittedly the complainant has not repaid the loan, absolutely, we are of the considered opinion that no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party can be attributed at this stage. If it all the complainant had repaid the loan and in spite of it the pledged ornaments are not returned, it was different matter. Such are not of the facts of the case on hand. 7. It is alleged by the complainant that he borrowed loan on 07.03.2005 from the opposite party and that was renewed on 13.10.2006. That fact is mentioned in the receipt that the complainant has produced. Further there is mention that interest for 10 months has been received. Hence, as stated in the said receipt, interest for 10 months only is paid. In the absence of payment of entire interest and the loan, how the complainant as entitled to get back the pledged ornaments would be the question. So also rate of interest and several other aspects needs to be considered. To substantiate this fact there is no evidence. 8. For the reasons noted above, we pass the following order: ORDER 1. The Complaint is dismissed. 2. There is no order as to cost. 3. Give a copy of this order to the complainant according to Rules. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 15th October 2009) (A.T.Munnoli) President (Y.V. Uma Shenoi) Member




......................Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi
......................Sri A.T.Munnoli