By Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The Complainant pledged gold ornaments, weighing 8.760 grams chain with locket, for Rs.10,000/- in the Opposite Party’s bank on 07/08/2017. On 09/04/2018, when the ornaments were returned after payment, on verifying the gold the Complainant could understand that the Opposite Party instead of pledged ornaments another ornament was returned and therefore the Complainant did not receive it. Thereafter, the Complainant filed a complaint before the Ambalavayal Police Station. However, the police did not take any steps to solve the problem. Thereafter, mediators were engaged in the matter and some talks were done but the manager insulted and threatened the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant filed the above number complaint to get back the pledged gold ornaments or the price of the gold and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
3. The Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version. The Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant had availed gold loan of Rs.10,000/- by pledging gold ornaments and he has repaid the amount and taken back the gold ornaments, after verification of the pledged ornaments before concerned officer with full satisfaction. The net weight of gold ornaments pledged with Opposite Party was 7.7 grams and not 8.760 grams as alleged in the complaint. Before availing the gold loan the quality of the gold ornament was examined in the presence of the Complainant by appraiser and it was weighed and relevant entries were made in the application. When the pledged ornaments were returned to the Complainant, again it was weighed to the satisfaction of the Complainant in his presence and he received the ornaments with full satisfaction. Thereafter the Complainant went home and returned in the evening making false and baseless allegations. The Opposite Party denied the allegation that he has not received the ornaments since he stated that the ornaments returned to him was not the ornaments he pledged. The Complainant received the gold ornaments after verification and satisfaction and had given necessary acknowledgement and went out. On examination, the Opposite Party realised that the ornaments brought back by the Complainant was not the ornaments pledged and returned to the Complainant. Pursuant to a complaint, Ambalavayal police made a detailed enquiry into the allegations of the Complainant and satisfied that there is no merit and bonafide in the complaint and accordingly closed the complaint. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite Party. Hence the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. On perusal of the complaint, version and documents the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the
part of the Opposite Party?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as prayed for?
5. Point No. 1 and 2 :- For the sake of convenience and brevity all points are considered together.
The Complainant had adduced oral evidence. He was examined as PW1 and the document produced was marked as Ext. A1. Ext. A1 is a retail invoice of gold ornaments. From the side of the Opposite Party Manager of the State Bank of India, Chulliyod branch was examined as OPW1. Ext. B1 document was marked through the PW1 during the cross examination.
6. It is the case that the Complainant pledged 8.760 grams of gold in the Opposite Party Bank. When the Complainant approached to take back the ornaments the same gold ornaments which were pledged was not returned. The complainant states that the chain and locket weighing 8.760 grams were pledged and another chain weighing 7.7 grams was returned to the Complainant and therefore the Complainant did not receive it. It is stated in the complaint that the Complainant had complained to the police and that the police had made an investigation, but neither the documents in this regard were produced nor the police were examined as witnesses. Ext. B1 is the document signed by the Complainant at the time of taking the loan and when the mortgage was redeemed. On verification, it is found that the Complainant had signed in the Gold Ornaments Take Delivery Letter marked as Ext. B1. He also stated that he filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman but he failed to produce even a single document to prove the same. It is not credible to believe that the Complainant did not buy back the gold. The Complainant has failed to produce any piece of evidence to show that his gold ornaments are still in the custody of the Opposite Party. In view of the facts and the materials on record, we see that the Opposite Party has returned the pledged ornaments. As the Opposite Party has returned the ornaments, the prayer of the Complainant cannot be considered. Since it has been made out from the records that, the Opposite Party has already returned the pledged articles, no deficiency in service is seen made out. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed without cost.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the day of 23rd July 2022.
Date of filing:19.03.2019.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd-
MEMBER : Sd-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Gopinathan Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Rameshan. E Banking Service.
Exhibit for the complainant:
A1. Retail Invoice. dt:11.03.2017.
Exhibit for the Opposite Party:
B1. Application cum appraisal for Loans against
Gold/Silver ornaments. dt:07.08.2017
