DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 7th day of September 2015
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 30/04/2014
(C.C.No.63/2014)
C.M.Rajeev,
S/o.Kuttagupthan,
Koothuparambu House,
Thachanattukara, Palaode Post,
Palakkad.
(Rep.by his wife Lathika) - Complainant
(By Adv.K.N.Sreelatha)
Vs
The Manager
Muthoot Financial Corporation,
Mannarkkad Branch,
Kodathippadi, Mannarkkad – 678 582 - Opposite party
(By Adv.K.Krishnakumar)
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R. President.
Brief facts of complaint.
On 8-5-2012 Complainant’s husband purchased two gold bangles of 5.999. gm and 6.040 gm from Chemmannur Jewelers, Palakkad and on the same day her husband pledged these two bangles along with other ornaments with Opposite party. As the complainant’s husband was in Gulf, complainant went to the opposite party’s firm with the authorization letter of her husband to release the two bangles from pledge. On 3-7-2013 after receiving an amount of Rs.28,411/- opposite party handed over two bangles to complainant. At that time she noticed that one bangle was broken into three pieces and other was in the verge of the same condition. Complainant submitted that the damages to the newly purchased gold bangles are caused by using some equipment while it was in the custody of opposite party and this act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and it caused great mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Then the complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite party and they replied for the same stating untenable contentions. Then the complainant made a complaint before the legal service authority and there too the opposite party denied the charges. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- along with cost of this complaint to the complainant.
Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite party. Opposite party entered appearance and filed their version stating the following. Opposite party admitted the pledge of gold ornaments and taking back of two bangles by the complainant. They also admitted that the pledge was made on 8-5-2012 by the complainant’ husband. Opposite party contended that the complainant tried to wear the bangles and she told them that the bangles have been bended and broken at the time of wearing. Therefore opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant since the bangles have been broken while it was in the hands of the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed their chief affidavits. Exts.A1 to A8 are marked from the side of complainant. Exts.B1 series are marked from the side of opposite party. Complainant was cross examined as PW1 and opposite party was cross examined as DW1.Complaiant produced pieces of bangles at the time of examination. But it was not marked.
The following issues are considered
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side opposite party?
- If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1&2
Complainant heard. Opposite party was absent at the time of hearing. We have perused the documents produced. Opposite party admitted that on 8-5-2012 the complainant’s husband pledged the two bangles along with other gold ornaments. Ext A1 purchase bill of the two gold bangles shows that the bangles were purchased on 8-5-2012. It proves that the bangles are pledged on the very same day of its purchase. Opposite party also admitted that the bangles are broken at the time of wearing. Ext B.1 series also show that the complainant is trying to wear bangle. Opposite party stated in affidavit that two bangles were not bended during pledge. In the above circumstances, we came to the conclusion that the bangles have no damage at the time of pledge. While it was in the custody of opposite party, the damage was happened. Complainant submitted that she did not use the bangles after its purchase. Ext A1 and affidavit of opposite party proved this fact. Hence no reason to suspect that the bangles are damaged due to wear and tear. Normally the financing agencies will examine the ornaments before taking into pledge, in order to prove that there is no damage to the ornaments or no malpractice was committed by the clients. If there is any damage to the ornaments seen that is recorded in the card which is issued to the clients. In this case opposite party did not produce any evidence to prove that the bangles are in damaged condition. Instead they admitted in their affidavit that two bangles were not bended during pledge. On perusing the documents we are of the opinion that the newly purchased bangles are damaged due to the act of opposite party. Being the Bangles are of 5.999 gm and 6.040 gm it will not broken by simply trying to wear. By the deficient act of opposite party complainant sustained financial loss and mental agony. Hence the opposite party has the liability to compensate the loss sustained and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
In the above circumstances we are of the view that the opposite party is deficient in service. In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) for expenses for repair of bangles, Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation for mental agony sustained and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of proceedings .
Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 7th day of September 2015.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/
Suma.K.P.
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Sales estimate dated 8/5/2012 issued by Chemmannur jewelers Palakkad
Ext.A2 – Receipt dated 24/1/2013 issued by opposite party
Ext.A3 – Receipt dated 15/4/2013 issued by opposite party
Ext.A4 – Receipt dated 3/7/2013 issued by opposite party.
Ext.A5 – Copy of lawyer notice sent by complainant to opposite party dated
20/7/2013
Ext.A6 – Reply to lawyer notice dated 16/8/2013
Ext.A7 – Photocopy of complaint dated 5/8/2013 filed by complainant before
Secretary, Taluk Legal Service Committee.
Ext.A8 – Authorization letter given to complainant by her husband.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1 series – 14 nos. of photos and one C.D.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 – Lathika Rajeev, Authorized agent of complainant.
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1 – Geetha.A.T.
Cost
Rs.1,000/-allowed as cost of the proceedings.
