This complaint  having come up for final hearing before us on 04.06.2015  on perusal of the material records  and on hearing the  arguments of  Tmt.S.Sarasakalamani, the counsel for the complainant and Thiru.K.Vaithilingam, the counsel for the opposite party  and having stood  before us for consideration, till this day the Forum  passed the following  

By President, Thiru..P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

                       This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.           

                    2) The gist of the  complaint filed  by the complainant  is that she pledged her gold  jewels weighing 38 grams with the  opposite party and borrowed  Rs. 65,000/- in  jewel loan No. 14324 on 10.02.2012 and the notice was issued by the opposite party  to the complainant  requesting her to redeem the jewel as the loan amount became overdue and before the time granted for repayment of the loan there was an advertisement in a Tamil Daily dated 04.07.2013 proclaiming that the jewels of the complainant shall be sold in public auction on19.07.2013.The complainant approached the opposite party and remittedRs.13,000/- towards interest and expenseson 11.07.2013 and the opposite party promised to stop the auction already advertised. Suddenly, the complainant received the letter with a pay order of Rs. 5634/- in which letter it was stated that the jewels were sold in public auction on 18.07.2013 for Rs. 71,000/- and after adjusting the loan amount due from the complainant there maining balance had been sent to her by way of pay order.Having promised to stop the auction on the receipt of Rs. 13,000/- the holding of public auction and selling of the complainant’s jewels in the said auction is sheer deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.The complainant therefore prays for an order to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay Rs. 40,000/- towards loss caused to the complainant because of the sale of her jewels in the public auction for a lesser price along with the cost of the litigation.

                    3)   The  written version  filed by the opposite party is that the complainant  pledged her  jewel for the  loan of Rs.65,000/-  on 10.02.2012 and on the date of  pledging itself  it was informed  that the  jewels should be redeemed within one year by paying principal  and interest,   and if the  principal  and interest  was not paid within one year, three months  grace time will be given and even if not  renewed thereafter final notice of auction will be issued  intimating  the date of auction.  The complainant  failed to pay the principal and interest within one year and therefore notice was issued  giving three months  grace time  and  even  then the petitioner failed to redeem   the jewels and hence  the publication was issued  in  a Tamil  Daily mentioning  the  amount  due and also the date of auction.  After the publication on 11.07.2013 the complainant  paid  a sum of Rs. 13,000/- which was  below the actual  accrued interest. The balance amount was more than the actual value of the jewels pledged the loan amount due as on the date was Rs.64,663/- whereas the value of jewels was only 54,000/-at the rate of Rs. 1600/- prevailing on that date. Since the loan amount was more than the value of the jewels pledged there was no other objection for the opposite party to sell the jewels inauction.Accordingly, the jewel was sold for a sum of Rs. 71,000/- after deducting the VAT of Rs.703/- and adjusting the principal and interest of Rs.64,663/- the balance amount Rs. 5634/- was in excess.Hence the opposite party duly sent a letter along with the pay order for that amount to the complainant.The opposite party never gave any assurance to stop the auction when the complainant paid Rs. 13,000/-.The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

                 4) The complainant has filed her proof affidavit reiterating all the averments made in her complaint and filed eight documents which are marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8.The opposite party has filed proof affidavit in support of his defense. Written arguments have been submitted by both the complainant and the opposite party.

                 5)   The points for Determination are:

                       1) Whether there is  any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

                        2) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

6)POINT  NO.1:   The main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party sent a notice to the complainant calling upon her to redeem the jewel loan,   made publication in Tamil Daily advertising  that the jewels of the complainant shall be sold in public auction  on 04.07.2013 and when the complainant paid Rs. 13,000/- towards principal  and  interest  of the jewel   loan   the opposite party  promised to stop  the auction but had  proceeded to hold the public auction and  sent the pay order for Rs. 5634/- to be the balance amount left  after adjusting the principal and interest  due from the complainant  from out of the auction amount. It is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as he has held the auction in contravention of assurance given by him.

7) The complainant  has filed Ex.A.1 the  loan card for issuing the jewel loan to the complainant.  Ex.A.2 is the publication of the jewel loan auction  to be held by the opposite party on  18.07.2013.  Ex.A.3 is the  counter foil of the chalan for payment of Rs. 13,000/- by the complainant towards her jewel loan account. Ex.A.4 is the letter sent by the opposite party to the complainant giving   particulars of the highest bid amount   in the  auction  and the balance amount paid to the complainant by way of pay order.  Ex.A.5 is the Xerox copy of the  pay order in favour of the complainant for Rs. 5634/-.  Ex.A.6 is the postal  receipt for sending notice to the opposite party  by the complainant through her counsel and Ex.A.8 is the postal acknowledgement card of the opposite party.

8) The contention of the opposite party is that the loan borrowed by the complainant  on pledging her jewels with the opposite party ought to have been  discharged within one year from the date of issue of the  loan i.e  on or before  10.02.2013.  The complainant  has never  paid any amount towards principal or interest and hence  after one year the opposite party sent notice to the complainant giving her grace time for three months  for redemption of jewels. Even thereafter  as the complainant  did not take steps to  redeem the jewels  the opposite party took steps for realization  of the loan amount by  auctioning the jewels in public auction and accordingly  he caused the publication  in Tamil Daily  dated 04.07.2013 fixing  18.07.2013 as the date of auction. On 11.07.2013 the complainant   has paid  Rs. 13,000/- towards the  loan amount.  The complainant’s contention  is that the  opposite party  promised  to stop the auction on the payment of the said Rs.13,000/- but has sold the  jewels in public auction and sent  the sum of Rs. 5634/-  said to be the balance  left  from out of the auction amount  after adjusting the principal and interest and tax etc., and the said amount had been sent by way of  postal order.  The complainant  had borrowed the loan amount  pledging her jewels  on 10.02.2012.Therefore the loan amount ought to have been discharged on or before10.02.2013 and the jewels ought to have been redeemed on or before that date.Though the complainant has claimed to have been paid interest periodically it is not proved by him and even the Ex.A.1 itself reveals only the payment of Rs.13,000/-on 11.07.2013 that too after the paper publication advertising the auction of the jewels.

9)  The allegation of the complainant that the opposite party  promised to stop the auction  is neither believable nor probable as there is no concrete evidence also to substantiate her version.  The said allegation is also specifically denied by the opposite party.  While the advertisement in Tamil Daily had already been published  fixing the auction date  18.07.2013 the meagre payment of Rs. 13,000/- which is not even the accrued  interest  plus margin money for renewal  no one could expect  that the opposite party would stop the auction. The payment of meagre amount of Rs.13,000/- that too just 7 days   before the date of auction would very well establish  that the complainant was not having the bonafide or willingness to pay the loan amount and redeem the jewel.  It is stated that  in the  written version of the opposite party that the loan amount as on  11.07.2013, the date of  payment of Rs.13,000/- by the  complainant was  Rs.64,663/- whereas the value of the jewel was only Rs. 54,000/- at the rate of Rs. 1600/- per gram.  The jewel  had been sold for Rs.71,000/- which is  fairly reasonable price  in view  of  the decreasing   value of the jewels at the time.   Therefore the complainant having  committed  default  to repay the loan amount and having failed to discharge the entire loan amount in spite of the auction proceedings taken by the opposite party it is made clear that the complainant  was not ready  and willing to  redeem the jewel after paying the entire loan amount  and the opposite party had no other  go   except  to sell  the jewels in public auction for the realization of the loan  amount due from the complainant.  Therefore there is  no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant lacks  bonafide in filing this complaint.

10) POINT NO.2:-In the result, the complaint is dismissed and there is no order as to costs.

                    This order was dictated by me to the Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected  and pronounced by me on this  25th   day of  June  2015.

MEMBER -I                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

List of documents on the side of the complainant:-

List of documents on the side of the   Opposite party :    NIL

MEMBER -I                                                                                         PRESIDENT