BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 332/2002 Filed on 29.07.2002<br /> Dated : 31.05.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> A. Abdul Latheef, Shafeequ Manzil, Mailamoodu, Kuttichal P.O.<br /> (By adv. Sri. S.A. Nagappan & S. Shanavas)<br /> Opposite party:<br /> Venugopal, Proprietor, Aiswarya Finance, Uriyacode, Nedumangadu, Perumkulam, Poovachal P.O.<br /> (By adv. A.S. Sujith Kumar)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 17.11.2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 06.05.2008, the Forum on 31.05.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER<br /> The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant availed a loan amount of Rs. 4000/- from the opposite party by pledging 17 gms of gold ornaments on 26.03.2001. On 26.04.2001 he had remitted Rs. 2000/- with interest to the opposite party and took back 5½ gm of gold. On 02.03.2002 the complainant approached the opposite party to clear the entire arrears and to take back the remaining 11½ gms of gold from the opposite party. Then the opposite party informed the complainant that the gold was already sold out in auction. Social workers of that locality enquired the matter with the opposite party. Then the opposite party agreed them to give back the gold to the complainant. But the opposite party has not given back till now. The complainant filed complaint before police authorities about this matter, but that also failed. According to the complainant, the act of the opposite party in selling the gold in the auction sale without issuing notice to the complainant is illegal. Hence he filed this complaint before this Forum for redressal of his grievances. <br /> In this case the opposite party has filed version. In the version the opposite party’s main contention is that they sold out <br /> <br /> only 7.2 gms of gold in the auction sale. The reason for the auction sale was that their repeated demands to the complainant to pay the remaining loan amount and to take back the gold pledged was not accepted by the complainant and hence opposite party sold out the ornaments after 15 months. The amount he received from the auction sale was less than his loan amount. Hence the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost. <br /> The points that would arise for consideration:-<br /> (i)Whether there has been deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and costs.<br /> In this case the complainant filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced the receipt issued by the opposite party which was marked as Ext. P1. <br /> In this case the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. Opposite party filed version and thereafter they remain exparte. The complainant has pleaded that he had pledged 17 gms of gold ornaments to the opposite party on 26.03.2001. But the ext. P1 document only shows the loan amount is Rs. 4000/- and on the back side of the receipt it is seen that Rs. 2000/- was<br /> <br /> paid by the complainant to the opposite party on 25.04.2001. But there is no record to prove that the complainant had pledged 17 gms of gold ornaments to the opposite party. In the version the opposite party admitted that he had sold 7.2 gms of gold in the auction sale. In these circumstances, this Forum finds that there was 7.2 gms of gold ornaments in the custody of the opposite party. <br /> The main allegation of the complainant against the opposite party is that the opposite party had sold the gold without issuing notice to him and thereby causing unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The opposite party had contended that allegation. The opposite party stated in version that opposite party had intimated that matter to the complainant through several letters before the auction sale. But no material on record to prove their contention. Therefore this Forum finds that there is deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. It was the duty of the opposite party to give proper notice to the complainant before conducting the auction sale. <br /> For the foregoing reasons this Forum finds that the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs. <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result an order is passed as follows: The opposite party is directed to return 7.2 gms of gold or the present market value of 7.2 gms of gold to the complainant on receiving Rs. 2000/- with 12% interest from 26.03.2001 to 02.03.2002 from the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 1000/- as cost. Time for compliance two months failing which execution can be taken. <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 31st May 2008. <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 332/2002<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Receipt No. 338/01 dated 26.03.2001 from Ayswarya Finance, Uriyacode.<br /> <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT