SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
Filed on 16/01/2008
The complainant case in a nutshell is as follows. The complainant on 24th February 2006 availed a loan amount of Rs.12,700/- from the opposite party. The complainant availed the same on pledging a gold chain that weighs 26 grams. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party on 7th January 2008 to redeem his ornament only to learn that the said gold chain was auctioned. The opposite party auctioned the chain with out giving proper notice or intimation to the complainant. The complainant sustained a loss of Rs.15000/-(fifteen thousand).The service of the opposite party was deficient. The opposite party caused mental agony to the complainant. Aggrieved by this the complainant approached this Forum.
2. Notice was sent. The opposite party turned up and filed version. The opposite party contends that the complainant is not consumer within the meaning of the provisions of 'The Consumer Protection Act'. The relationship between the complainant and the opposite party is one of the pawner-pawnee relation. The opposite party further contends that, proper notice was provided to the complainant and it was retuned with an endorsement 'addressee not known'. As per the existing law as to 'notice', the opposite party met the terms. That apart, 22nd August 2007 the date of auction was properly published in prominent daily 'Malayala Manorama'. As such, deficiency of service is nonexistent, and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost and compensatory cost to the opposite party.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the oral testimony of the complainant himself as PWl and the documents Exbts. Al and A2 were marked. Exbt. Al is the gold loan pledge token and A2 is the pass book issued by the opposite party. On the side of the opposite party, one of its functionaries was examined as RWl and the documents Exbts. BI to B4 were marked. Exbt. B1 is the application for the loan, B2 the copy of the notices issued to the complainant, B3 is the copy of the registered cover to this, and B4 is the news paper wherein the date of auction was published. Complainant filed objection to the version.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions raised by the opposite party, the questions
arise for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the complainant is consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act?
(b) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
5. Concededly, the complainant availed a loan from the opposite party. The loan so availed was on pledging a gold ornament. The opposite party contends that there is only Pawner- Pawnee relationship, as such the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. We regret, we are unable to agree with this contention of the opposite party. As already observed, the complainant has availed a loan from the opposite party. No doubt, the service of the opposite party has been purchased by the complainant, and naturally, the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. The opposite party forcefully argued that the gold chain was auctioned after perfect notice and requisite proceedings. The complainant assails this with the same verve. The complainant contends that the notice and the communications if any from the opposite party were sent to an erroneous or deficient address. The same was dissimilar from what was noted down in the loan application and even in the pass book. We went through the materials put on record. We perused the evidence carefully. We are of the considered view that there is substance in the argument advanced by the complainant. The address put down on the notices and other correspondence is apparently incomplete. Suffice it to say that there was no proper notice to the complainant as to the said auction. We hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is entitled to relief.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.15000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed accordingly. No order as to cost.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri.K.Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Urumees (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Gold loan pledge token
Ext.A2 - Pass book issued by the opposite party
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Alexander Chacko (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Application for the loan
Ext.B2 - Copy of the notices issued to the complainant
Ext.B3 - Copy of the registered cover
Ext.B4 - News paper wherein the date of auction was published
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
