Date of Filing : 17.04.2012

  Date of Order : 16.06.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

Dated 16^th JUNE 2012

PRESENT

Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL,   …….                PRESIDENT

Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB.                        ……..     MEMBER

Smt. K.G.SHANTALA                                         ……..     MEMBER

CC No. 52 / 2012

Bhadramma, W/o. Sampangiramaiah,

Aged about 50 years,

R/o. Upasapura Village,

Huralagere Post, Malur Taluk,

Kolar District.

(By Sri. Ganesh.N., Adv.)                                       ……. Complainant

V/s.

M. Rathan Kumar,

Pawn Broker,

Bus Stand Road, Malur Town,

Kolar District.

(By Sri. Sama Rangappa, Adv.)                              …… Opposite Party

ORDER

By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complaint u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking direction to the OP to return golden ornaments to the Complainant by receiving the loan amount or to pay present market value of the golden ornaments are necessary:-

One Ravi, son of the Complainant had pledged 5 Grams of Gold on 10.01.2010 for Rs.3,000/-, 9.2 Grams of Gold on 26.01.2010 for Rs.8,000/-, 16 Grams of Gold on 24.02.2010 for Rs.14,000/- and 13 Grams of Gold on 27.06.2010 for Rs.15,000/- with the OP and the said Ravi died on 16.07.2010 leaving the Complainant as his legal representative. Complainant approached OP and showed their respective Pawn Receipts and demanded for return of golden ornaments.  OP received all the original Receipts along with Xerox copy and promised to trace the gold articles and return the same, but it has not done so.  The second son of Complainant S. Raju issued notice to the OP  to which an untenable reply has been given.  Hence filed the complaint.

2.       In brief the version of OP are:-

Pledging of Gold ornaments by Ravi and his death are admitted.  Complainant is the mother of the deceased is not disputed.  OP came to know that after the death of Sampangiramaiah i.e., wife of the Complainant, deceased Ravi  settled in his Grand-mother’s house at Upasapura Village, Malur Taluk.  Complainant and his son Raju left the village 6 years ago.  OP does not know whether the Complainant is the mother of the deceased or not.  OP does not know the family history of the Complainant.  Before the death of Ravi, his mother Smt. Bhadramma i.e., Complainant filed suit for partition and for other reliefs against her son and against others in O.S. No. 272/2009 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Malur.  That proves misunderstanding between the Complainant and the deceased.  The said Gold ornaments were belonging to Rathnamma, aunt of the deceased Ravi.  After the death of Ravi, on 26.08.2010 Rathnamma, Prakash & Ramakka came and produced original 3 Receipts and said one Receipt has been lost and produced affidavit with respect to lost Receipt dtd. 24.02.2010 and paid Rs.45,000/- and OP returned the golden ornaments to them on 26.08.2010.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases, Complainant has filed his affidavit with documents and the OP submitted that his version & documents be read as his affidavit evidence.  Complainant had filed written arguments. 

4.       Points that arise for our consideration are:

(A)     Whether there is deficiency in service ?

(B)     What order ?

5.       Our answers for the above points are as under:

(A)     Positive

(B)     As per detailed order for the following reasons

REASONS

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit & documents on record, it is an admitted fact that Ravi, son of the Complainant had pledged certain Gold ornaments with the OP for certain amount and Ravi died.  Complainant approached the OP regarding release of pledged Gold ornaments.  OP had taken 4 Bills and gave chit to the Complainant and one original Bill is with the Complainant.  Original Pawn ticket with the Complainant.  U/s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the mother is the Class-I heir and she is answerable to the assets & liabilities of the deceased.  In this case, it is the deceased who had pledged 43.20 Grams of Gold ornaments with the OP.  Hence, after the death of the deceased, it is the Complainant who is liable to pay the loan / pawn amount of the OP and OP to return the Gold ornaments to the Complainant.

7.       OP contends that Gold ornaments belong to somebody else and somebody Rathnamma (Aunt), Prakash (Uncle), Ramakka (Grand-mother) have paid the amount to him and he returned the Gold ornaments to them.  There is no document to prove in this regard.  Even otherwise, no affidavit of any persons are there nor original pawn ticket.  Even otherwise, when the Complainant is the mother of the deceased, she is entitled to the Gold ornaments.  If the OP has given it to somebody else, it is for the OP to recover those Gold ornaments or money from any other persons for which this order will not come in the way.  Complainant is liable to pay the amount of loan with interest till date to the OP and OP is liable to return the Gold ornaments. When the Gold ornaments are not there, we have to see what is the present market value of Gold, what is the loan amount that has to be paid is to be seen.

8.       As on today, the Gold value is about Rs.3,042/- per gram.   Hence, for the total Gold ornaments that have been pledged comes to Rs.1,31,414.40  (43.20 grams x Rs.3,042/-).  Details of loan obtained and the interest payable on the loan is as follows:

Thus, total loan amount payable i.e., principal & interest as on date comes to Rs.52,492/-.  The difference amount payable to the Complainant after deducting this loan amount in the value of the Gold comes to Rs.78,922.40  (Rs.1,31,414.40 – Rs.52,492.00).  OP is liable to pay Rs.78,922.40 to the Complainant.  Hence, we hold the above points accordingly and pass the following order:

ORDER

1.       Complaint is allowed in part.

2.       OP is directed to pay Rs.78,922.40 with interest @ 12% P.A. on the above amount from the date of complaint till payment within 30 days from today.

3.       OP is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.

4.       OP is directed to send the amount to the Complainant as ordered at (2) & (3) above by Demand Draft through RPAD and submit compliance report with necessary documents to this Forum within 45 days.

5.       Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.

6.       Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16^th of June 2012)

T. NAGARAJA          K.G.SHANTALA           H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO

    Member                        Member                              President