The gist of the case is as follows <br /> The complainant had pledged a gold chain on 31.1.04 weighing 28 grams with the opposite party's financial institution and received Rs.12,000/-. On the same day itself, he had pledged a gold bangle weighing 6 grams and received Rs.1,900/- from the opposite parties. On 2.3.04 also the complainant pledged 2 gold bangles weighing 6 grams each for Rs.4,350/-. He had also pledged a gimiki and stud weighing 6 grams for Rs.1,900/- . All these ornaments belong to the complainant's wife. The complainant was paying interest on the loan amount at the rate of Rs.40 for Rs.1,000/- per month. He had paid the entire interest till 28.2.06. On 24.5.06 the complainant approached the opposite party for settling the accounts. Then he was informed that all the ornaments were sold by the opposite party. The opposite party asked him to settle the matter receiving Rs.2,000/-. But the complainant was not amenable for that. He prays for an order directing the opposite party to return the pledged ornaments or the same weight of gold or the market price of the ornaments. He also request for compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of the petition . <br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party filed version and admitted the pledge of ornaments by the complainant. The opposite party's version is that the complainant had settled the account and taken back the ornaments on 4.12.2004 itself. The complainant had some difference of opinion regarding the rate of interest at the time of settling the account. And after receiving the lawyer notice, the opposite party had convinced the complainant that he has not charged any undue interest and the complainant had assured not to take any action against the opposite party. So the opposite party had not replied the complainant's lawyer notice. So the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. Complainant was examined as PW1. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the complainant as PW2 and PW3. Documents Ext. A1 to A7 were marked on complainant's side. The opposite party was examined as OPW1 and Ext. B1 was marked on the side of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 4. The issues to be decided are as follows:<br /> <br /> 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief.<br /> <br /> 5. Point No.1: Ext. A1 to A5 shows the pledge of ornaments with the opposite party. The opposite party also admits the pledge of ornaments and there is no dispute regarding the weight of gold ornaments pledged. The opposite parties case is that the ornaments were taken back by the complainant. The opposite party has produced Ext. B1 to prove their case. The signature of the complainant is seen on three parts of this document. On the face of the document, it appears that two signatures are put on the same date and the date of return of ornaments is added later. There are other facts to suspect the tenuity of the documents Ext. B1. The opposite party produced the Ext. B1 to show that the ornaments were taken back by the complainant on 14/12. In the version they state that the ornaments were taken back on 4.12.04. On the rear side of the B1 it can be read that the ornaments were pledged on 14.12.2004. In total Ext. B1 is found a concocted one. The opposite party has not produced any supporting documents to prove Ext. B1. On the other hand, the complainant has clear documents Ext. A1 to A4 to prove that the ornaments were not taken back. On these 4 documents, it is printed that the pledged ornaments will be returned only on producing these cards The OPW1 deposed that the ornaments were given back to the complainant without the <br /> production of the cards on the complainant's submission that there were lost. This version of opposite party is discarded as there is no possibility of losing 4 cards altogether. Ext. B1 is produced by the opposite party to show that the complainant had taken back the ornaments on 14.12.2004. Ext. B1 shows that the ornaments which were described on the rear side of Ext. B1 is taken back on 14.12.04. But as per the rear side writing, the ornaments are 'pledged' on 14.12.04. And to hide those writings something is photocopied over it. Though 2nd opposite party state that the photocopy was made by mistake on the Ext. B1, the opposite party could not explain the rear side writing on Ext. B1. In short as per Ext. B1 the pledge was on 3.12.04 and return of ornament was on 14.12.04. At the same time the rear side writing shows that the pledge was on 14.12.04. The proof affidavit affirms that the loan was renewed on 3.12.04. But the version is silent about the renewal. As per version, the ornaments ware taken back on <br /> 4.12.04. But as per Ext. B1 the return of ornaments were on 14.12.04, Ext. B1 is not supported by any other documents. It does not show the amount which is paid for the return of ornaments. The opposite party could have produced the account extract which shows the repayment of loan. That is not done by the opposite party. So, the evidences point out that the complainant has not repaid the loan and the opposite party had not returned the ornaments. The possibility is that the opposite parties has sold the ornaments and closed the loan account of complainant without any notice to the complainant. So the point No.1 is found against the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 6. Point No.2: The complainant has not produced any document to show that he has paid any interest on the loan amount for any period. The documents produced by the complainant or opposite party do not show the rate of interest agreed between them. However opposite party's money has been in the hands of the complainants for all the period from 2004 till today. He has not deposited or even expressed his willingness to deposit it in the Forum at any point of litigation. The rate of gold is increasing day by day. It is just that the complainant should pay the principal amount Rs.20,150 with 12 % interest till the date of complaint. This approximately amounts to 20,150+5778=25930. Deducting this amount, the opposite party has to give the price of 50 grams of gold at the date of complaint. The complaint was filed in the month of July 2006. The price of gold at that period was approximately Rs.1,000/-per gram. The price of 50 gram gold is 50,000/-. The opposite party has to give Rs.24,070 (50,000-25,930) to the complainant.<br /> <br /> Hence the opposite party is directed to give Rs.24,070 (Rupees Twenty four thousand and seventy only) to the complainant within 30 days of this order with 10% interest on the amount from the date of the order till payment. No order as to cost or compensation. <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 29th July, 2008.<br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> MEMBER: I Sd/-<br /> /True copy/ MEMBER: II Sd/-<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> PRESIDENT,CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> A P P E N D I X:<br /> Witness examined for complainant:<br /> PW1 Yoosef Complainant<br /> PW2 Gopalakrishnan Driver<br /> PW3 Usman Cooli<br /> Witness examined for opposite party:<br /> OPW1 Krishnakumar Banker<br /> OPW2 Renukadevi DTP Operator<br /> Exhibits marked for complainant:<br /> A1 Receipt Dt. 31.1.2004<br /> A2 Receipt Dt. 31.1.2004<br /> A3 Receipt Dt. 2.3.2004<br /> A4 Receipt Dt. 27.9.2004<br /> A5 Series Copy of lawyer notice Dt. 25.5.2006<br /> A6 Postel receipt Dt.25.5.2006<br /> A7 AD Card <br /> Exhibits marked for opposite parties:<br /> B1 Pledge note Dt. 3.12.2004<br /> <br />