ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. This complaint is filed by the complainant to return the pledged ornament by receiving the loan amount and reasonable interest and other reliefs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant pledged a gold ornaments [a pair of stud and jumukka] and availed a loan amounting to Rs.3800/- from the opp.party on 10.7.2004. The actual weight of the said ornament comes to 8.400 grms. On 4.1.2007 I the complainant approached the opp.party to redeem the loan by remitting the entire dues as on date and to get back the ornaments. Then he recorded that the said ornaments has been taken away to their Head Office for auction The action of the opp.party is beyond natural justice and highly irregular. The complainant have send an advocate notice in this regard and for the same he send a reply notice. In it he has mentioned that the pledged ornament can be redeemed at an early date. But when he approached him to redeem the pledged ornaments, the same was not available there and the notice is sent to redicule me and to outrage my modesty. Hence filed this complaint for relief. Opp.party filed version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant pledged a pair of stud and 2 Jimikka of old gold weight of 8 gram with stone and foreign part [Azhukka] based on an agreement executed by the complainant. The agreement is submitted herewith] In the agreement he had categorically admitted that the pledged article will be remeeded within 1 year from the date of pledging ie. 101.7.2004. The opp.party has got all the right to auction the items even without notice. The complainant has got no manner of right to violate the agreement and he never turned to this opp.party for redeeming the gold ornaments. This opp.party had sent a notice on 20.7.2005 under certificate of posting even then he had not turned up. After receiving the said notice he had issued a notice on 10.1.2007 which was duly responded. The complainant is not a consumer under the definition of the C.P. Act. A preliminary issue may be raised whether this petition is maintainable or not. As per the National Commission [1997 [1] CPJ 559] the pledging of Gold ornaments is a debtor-creditors relationship and it does not comes under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further submitted that this opp.party had not received any money for rendering service to the complainant. On the other hand he had pledged gold ornaments under an agreement and an agreed rate of interest. Now the complainant cannot violate any terms and conditions of the agreement. Hence opp.party pray to dismiss the complaint. The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and cost. For the complainant PW.1. is examined. Ext. P1 to P5 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 and D2 are marked.. Points: The complainant’s case is that he pledged a gold ornaments and availed a loan of Rs.3,800/- from the opp.party on 10.7.2004. On 4.1.2007 when he approached the opp.party to redeem the loan, the opp.party said that the said ornaments were taken away to their Head office for auction. Aggrieved by the said action of the opp.party, the complainant filed this complaint for getting relief. According to the opp.party complainant pledged the gold ornaments based on an agreement executed between the complainant and the opp.party. In the agreement the complainant admitted that the pledged article will be redeemed within 1 year from the date of pledging. After 1 year the opp.party has got all the right to auction the pledged items without notice. Opp.party also contended that the complainant is not a consumer In the complaint itself the complainant admits that he pledged the items on 10.7.2004 and approached only 10.1.2007 to redeem the loan. As per Ext.D1 the pledged items shall be redeemed within 13 months. Otherwise the opp.party has got all the right to auction the items even without notice. Here there is no dispute that the complainant approached the opp.party after 13 months. Thereby the complainant himself violated the condition of Ext. D1. The opp.party has not done any injustice or any any unfair trade practice. Moreover as per the National Commission in 1997 [1] CPJ 559 the pledging of Gold ornaments is a debtor creditor relationship and it does not comes under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act. In the result the complaint fails and is dismissed without cost. Dated this the 31st day of January, 2009. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Lekshmanan List of documents for the complainant P1. – Gold loan receipt P2. – Advocate notice P3. – Postal receipt P4. – Postal Acknowledgment P5. – Reply notice. List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – George Validyan List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Record D2. - UCP | 
