IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of January, 2016
Filed on 01.09.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.258//2015
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Biju. V.B. 1. Sri. Sivadas, S/o Kumaran
Vadakumthalackal Puthiyasserry House
Muhamma P.O. Dispensary Road
Kayippuram, Alappuzha Cherai, Pallippuram
Mobile No. 9495443086
2. Amruthasree Chits (Fervent)
H.O. Nayarambalam
Phone No.0484 2498832
3. The Branch Manager
Amruthasree Chits
Gandhi Nagar Shopping Complex
Cherthala
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in a nutshell is as follows:-
The complainant on 24th August 2013 subscribed a Chitty having a sala of Rs.2 lakhs with the opposite parties. Through different installments, the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.1,59,132/- practice of the opposite party is unfair and their service is deficient. On got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum seeking compensation and other relief.
3. On notice being sent, the opposite party turned up and filed version. The opposite party’s contention is that after pledging the ornaments the complainant had not effected repayment for a long time. According to the opposite party they are not even liable to send any notice to the complainant. Strangely still, they sent registered notice to the complainant which evoked no sort of response from the complainant’s part. It is in this context that the opposite party sold out the complainant’s ornaments, the opposite party fervently contends. The opposite party never committed deficiency of service. The complainant is disentitled to any of the relief sought for, the opposite party strongly contends.
4. The complainant has filed proof affidavit and documents Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. The opposite party filed proof affidavit.
5. Bearing in mind, the contentions of the parties the issues that come up for consideration before us are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party?
2) Whether the opposite party harassed the complainant?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. We meticulously went through the complaint, perused version, affidavits and other documents. Concededly the complainant has pledged the gold ornaments and availed a loan amount of Rs.72,000/- from the opposite party. It also appears that the opposite party has admitted that the gold ornaments were sold for the purpose of recovering the loan amount. According to the opposite party prior to the said selling of the complainant’s articles, the opposite party had intimated the said aspect to the complainant through registered notice. Notwithstanding the same, the complainant was reluctant to redeem her pawn. It is in this premise that the opposite party sold out the complainant’s ornaments. Now the instant issue comes up to be looked into is whether there was a notice as claimed by the opposite party. We carefully examined the materials that were placed before us on record. It is true that the opposite party has contended repeatedly throughout the different stages of this proceeding that a registered notice was issued to the complainant. Going by the evidence, it appears that the opposite party could not prove that any such intimation or notice was there. At this juncture the only inference that can be drawn is that the opposite party has arbitrarily sold out the complainant’s ornaments. Thus viewing from any perspective, we are not in a position place reliance on the opposite party’s contention. Needless to say the opposite party’s contentions do not inspire confidence in us. On the other hand the complainant’s case appears more probable and inevitably merit acceptance. The opposite party committed deficiency of service coupled with unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled to relief.
In view of whatsoever have been discussed herein above, the opposite party is directed to give back the complainant’s gold ornaments, if handing back the same is not unworkable pay the complainant the cost of her gold ornaments (the value of the ornaments had as on date 28th August 2010 on which date the complainant approached the opposite party to redeem her pledge) on the complainant repaying the loan amount with 12% interest as on the date 28th August 2010. No compensation or cost is ordered. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2015.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 - Copy of the loan agreement
Ext.A2 - Copy of the Advocate notice dated 6.9.2010
Ext.A3 - Post card
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
