ADV. RAVISUSHA, MEMBER.

            The complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2 [d] of the Consumer Protection Act.

          The  1^st opp.party is the Branch Manager of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., which is doing the business of Chitty, gold loan , housing finance etc.   The 2^nd opp.party is the Managing Director of Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.   The complainant was a substituted subscriber to chitty No.122/2009 with Chittal No.18 conducted by the 1^st opp.party.   For getting substituted, the complainant had paid the entire amount as demanded by 1^st opp.party.   After  substitution, the complainant prized the said chitty on the  next month.   Subsequently, the complainant paid the entire remaining monthly installments and the terms of the chitty was over on 10.8.2011.   The complainant deposited with the 1^st opp.party a Gold Chain weighing 31.300 grams on 11.10.2010 as security for the due repayment of the future installments of said chitty as per  Gold  Deposit Receipt NO.067/561 dated 11.10.2010.  Since the complainant had already remitted all the dues by 10.8.2011, the complainant approached 1^st opp.party to return the said gold ornament  to the complainant.  But 1^st opp.party had refused to return the said gold chain and demanded more money for returning it to the complainant.   The said demand for more money on the part of 1^st opp.party is illegal and unjust.   The 1^st opp.party had offered to substitute the complainant in the said chitty on his paying the amount as demanded by the 1^st opp.party.   The complainant accepted the said offer and paid whatever amount 1^st opp.party had demanded.   Thus there was a concluded contract between the complainant and 1^st opp.party.   After the  expiry of the period of the said chitty, a further demand on the part  of the 1^st opp.party  for more money is without any legal basis, unfair and amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.   The complainant  sent a legal notice of demand dated 214.1.2012 through his counsel to both the opp.parties demanding return of the said gold ornaments to the complainant within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.  Even though both the opp.parties duly received the said notice by 8.1.2012, they did not return the said gold ornament to the complainant.   The opp.parties also did not care even to sent  a reply  to the said notice.  Hence the complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

2.     Relief and cost.

Points:

After receiving notices from the the Forum opp.parties 1 and 2 filed vakalath.   After that both of them remained absent and not filed version.  Hence both the opp.parties were  set exparte  For exparte evidence complainant filed chief affidavit and 5 documents.   The documents were marked as Ext. P1 to P5.   As the opp.party did not adduce any evidence, we are constrained to believe the evidence of the complainant.  Through the complaint, chief affidavit and Ext.P1 to P5  complaint proved his case.   There is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get relief.

          In the result complaint is allowed in part.   The opp.parties are directed to return the gold ornament deposited by the complainant with the 1^st opp.party as per Gold Deposit Receipt No.067/561 dated 11.10.2010.  Opp.parties are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost to the proceedings.   The opp.parties shall comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

            Dated this the 25^th  day of October, 2012.

             List  of witnesses for the complainant: NIL

List of documents for the complainant

P1.- Receipt

P2. - Advocate notice

P3. – Postal receipt

P4. – Acknowledgement card

P5. – Acknowledgement card