ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.

            The complainant filed this complaint for getting an order directing the opp.party to give back the chain or to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as cost and compensation.

          The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

          On 9.11.2004 the complainant pledged a gold chain as security with the opp.party inorder to take a loan for Rs.19,800/- from Muthoot Finance Corporation Ltd.   The complainant approached the opp.party on July 2005 to repay the principle amount along with the  interest and to redeem the gold chain pledged with the opp.party.  The complainant visit to the opp.party’s office with principle amount and interest to redeem the security was terribly shocked to know that the pledged gold chain as security was sold off.  The complainant understand that the right of redemption is like a spreading fire on a wet blanket and nobody can take it away for any reason.  The complainant was by no means informed by the opp.party as to the selling of the security.    Not even a noticve regarding the selling of the security was not sent by the opp.party.    It is a clear deficiency of service from the part of the opp.party   Hence the complaint.

          The opp.party filed a version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law on facts.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter  and or to give her reliefs sought.     The first para of the complaint is true and hence admitted.   However, the paras 2,3,4 and 5 of the complaint is false and baseless and therefore vehemently denied.   The complainant had not approached the opp.party in July 2005 as alleged in the complaint.   The pledge account was amicably and mutually settled even before July 2005.  The complainant has no legal right to raise a false allegation against the opp.party in the facts and circumstances of this case.  The allegations and averments as contained in the rest of the complaint are also devoid of truth and basis and therefore, they are also hereby strongly denied.   The opp.party had lnot failed to discharge his statutory duties as contemplated under the Kerala Money Lenders Act. As already stated the complaint is unsustainable and bad for want of cause of action and jurisdiction.   The complaint is anfractuous.   The complainant is not eligible for any relief in the facts and circumstances of this case.    The  complainant had not approached this Forum with clean hands and just mind.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party.  Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

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

2.     Reliefs and costs.

For the  complainant PW.1  is examained.   Ext.P1 to P4 are marked.

For the opp.party DW.1 is examined.  Ext.D1 and D2 are marked.

Points:

          The case of the complaint is that on 9.11.2004 the complainant pledged a gold chain as security with the opp.party and taken a loan for Rs.19,800/-.  On July 2005, when the complainant approached the opp.party to repay the principle amount along with interest to redeem the security, he came to know that the pledged gold chain was sold off.   Not even a notice regarding the selling of the security was sent by the opp.party to the complainant.  The act of the opp.party amounts to unfair trade practice and hence prays for relief.

          The case of the opp.party is the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.   The complainant is not a consumer under the Act.  Loan on the strength of pledging gold only create relationship of creditor and debtor.   As the case is not maintainable prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          Heard both sides.   The main point to be considered is  whether a case of this type is maintainable in this Forum?  This question can be answered in the light of the decisions, reported in Appeal No.111/94 of State Commission, Thiruvananthapuram.  In the light of the decision, the relationship between the debtor and creditor arises by pledging of Jewellary in the bank.  In view of the above judgement of the state Commission, we held that in a case of pledge, the debtor-creditor relationship exists and the case is not maintainable in this forum.

          In the result the complaint is hereby dismissed.  No cost is ordered.

          Dated this the   24^th      day of November, 2008.

                                                                   .

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Jayachandran

List of documents for the complainant.

P1. – Slip issued by the opp.party

P2. – Loyalty No. Slip

P3. – Advocate notice

P4. -  Acknowledgement card.

List of witnesses for the opp.party

DW.1. – Hari.T.R.

List of documents for the opp.party

D1. – Loyalty Number

D2. – Pass book of the pledge