Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/325/2006

S.V.S.Rama Prakash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijay & Co., - Opp.Party(s)

M.Mahesh

17 May 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 02.02.2006

                                                                          Date of Order : 17.05.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.325/2006

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 17^TH DAY OF MAY 2019

                                 

Mr. S.V.S. Rama Prakash alias Prakash .M,

S/o. Late Mr. M. Venkatasubbaiah,

No.8/79, 1^st Floor,

1^st Main Road, M.R. Nagar,

Kodungaiyur,

Chennai – 600 118.                                                        .. Complainant.                                                  

 

                                                                                              ..Versus..

 

1. Vijaya & Co.

No.30, New No.65,

Egmore High Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.

 

2. Mr. Ujwal Singh Mehta, 

Residing / Carrying on business at:-

No.46, Egmore High Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.

 

3. Mrs. Nirmala Mehta,

Residing / Carrying on business at:-

No.46, Egmore High Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.                                                ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                 : M/s. T. Ramkumar

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party        : M/s. M. Aravind Kumar &

                                                                 another

Counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 : M/s. K. Balakrishnan &   

                                                                 another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to return all the pledged jewels worth about Rs.6,00,000/-  as described in the schedule and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for business loss, mental agony, untold hardship suffered by the complainant and unfair trade practice with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he is carrying on the business of manufacturing Gold, Diamond and Silver Ornaments through several Goldsmiths and other persons.  The 1^st opposite party is a pawn broker lured the general public by advertisement of attractive rate of interest on pledging the jewels.  So, the complainant pledged his jewels and customers’ jewels on several occasions obtained loan from the opposite party.  On 18.02.2004, the complainant to obtain loan from the opposite party pledged a Gold Saradu for a sum of Rs.6,000/- bearing receipt No.77835.  The complainant also pledged about 5 items with the 1^st opposite party.   The complainant submits that while pledging the jewels, the 1^st opposite party issued receipts and assured that on repayment of loan with 18% interest and 24% interest for gold and diamond items respectively, the jewels will be returned.  The complainant submits that on 26.11.2004, his hand bag containing all the loan receipts issued by the opposite party including papers other vouchers related to the pledged jewels were stolen by break opening of his Bajaj scooter lock when it was parked in front of Mr. Ujjwal Mehta and Nirmala Mehta, the opposite parties 2 & 3 residence.  Immediately, the complainant lodged a complaint before F2 Police Station, Egmore.  Since the police has not registered the case, the complainant lodged several complaints before the Commissioner of Police, Superintendent of Police etc and at long last, CSR was issued on 19.07.2005.  The complainant submits that he informed the fact of theft to the 1^st opposite party and instructed not to return the jewels to any other persons and issued legal notice to the 1^st opposite party dated:21.07.2005.  The opposite party without issuing any reply issued auction notice dated:10.10.2015.  Hence, the complainant issued further legal notice dated:21.10.2005 & 16.01.2006 to the 1^st opposite party and legal notice to the Muthoot Finance for which, the Muthoot Finance sent a reply dated:28.01.2006. The 1^st opposite party has also sent a reply dated:30.01.2006 in detail.  

2.     The complainant submits that he came to know that the opposite party handed over the jewels pledged by the complainant to the staffs of the opposite parties 2 & 3 by forging the authorisation letters.    The complainant submits that the 1^st opposite party in collusion with the opposite parties 2 & 3 failed to furnish the details of the pledged jewels and not allowed the complainant for redemption.  The complainant submits that the complainant has not appointed anybody to a redeem the jewels pledged for a total sum of Rs.1,94,000/-.   The complainant submits that the opposite party has not sold the gold saradu pledged for Rs.6,000/- through  auction.  No intimation also received by the complainant from the opposite party in respect of further auction of the pledged jewels. The value of jewels mishandled by the opposite party is Rs.6,00,000/-.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 1^st opposite party states that the 1^st opposite party is a licensed pawn broker of doing the business of pawn brokering.   The 1^st opposite party states that the complainant used to pledge gold jewels with the 1^st opposite party but never pledged to the tune of Rs.1,94,000/- as alleged in the complainant and notice dated:16.01.2006.  The 1^st opposite party issued suitable reply notice on 30.01.2006.  The 1^st opposite party states that the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts.  The 1^st opposite party states that after the receipt of notice dated:21.07.2005 & 21.10.2005 respectively suitable reply sent by 1^st opposite party dated:26.10.2005 which was received by the complainant’s Counsel but the same reply sent to the complainant was returned with postal endorsement as ‘refused’.   The 1^st opposite party states that on verification of the entire records, it was found that the complainant had pledged jewels under the following three Invoices:

S.No.                             Bill No.                 Date                    Amount in Rs.

1.                     77835                18.02.2004         6,000/-     

2.                     79141                07.07.2004         3,000/-

3.                     80044                20.10.2004         4,000/-

 Even after repeated reminders and demands, the complainant has not paid any amount towards jewel loan obtained with interest and not inclined to redeem the jewels.   Hence, the 1^st opposite party issued auction notice to the knowledge of the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party states that the allegation that the jewels worth Rs.1,94,000/- is absolutely false.  Since, the complainant has not come forward to redeem the jewels, the opposite party had sold the jewels in action on 28.10.2005 and adjusted the amount.  There is deficit of Rs.681/- to clear the loan.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.   Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 2 & 3 is as follows:

The opposite parties 2 & 3 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.      The opposite parties 2 & 3 state that the 2^nd opposite party used to send the complaint to one Kuppusamy, Kavel Chand and Praveen Kumar to pledge the customer jewels with the 1^st opposite party.    The opposite parties 2 & 3 state that the incident alleged by the complainant in front of the opposite parties’ 2 & 3 residence is a concocted one and imaginary.  The opposite parties 2 & 3 state that they do not know about the alleged complaint given by the complainant on 26.11.2004 to the F2 Police Station.  The has not investigated on the complaint of the complainant.   The opposite parties 2 & 3 have no knowledge regarding the allegation of police complaint. 

5.     The opposite parties 2 & 3 state that the complainant sent a legal notice dated:21.10.2005 asking the opposite party to furnish the statement of account with respect to the pledged jewels and to keep ready the jewels for redemption.  If fact, there is no need for the complainant to sent the aforesaid legal notice to the opposite party since the aforesaid jewels are not belonged to the opposite parties 2 & 3 and the complainant states that the 1^st opposite party engaged an auctioneer viz. Bafna Auctioneers, Kodambakkam, Chennai sent an auction notice fixing an auction date on 28.10.2005 with respect to a single gold Saradu bearing loan No.77835 for a loan amount of Rs.6,000/- and the complainant did not stated whether the auction notice sent to the complainant’s address.  If so, the complainant should redeem his jewels by approaching the 1^st opposite party.  The opposite parties 2 & 3 state that the Mr. Praveen Kumar and Mr. Kuppusamy forged the signature of the complainant is denied as incorrect.  The opposite parties 2 & 3 state there is no collusion with the opposite parties and not made any business profits till date by tampering the records and are not bound to return the entire jewels to the complainant.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 2 & 3 and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A21 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.  In spite of sufficient time is given, the opposite parties 2 & 3 has not filed their proof affidavit within the stipulated time and hence, the evidence on the side of the opposite parties 2 & 3 is closed.

7.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get return of the jewels pledged worth about Rs.6,00,000/- as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for damages, business loss, mental agony, unfair trade practice etc with cost as prayed for?

8.      On point:-

        The complainant filed his written arguments.  The opposite parties has not filed any written arguments and not turned up to advance any oral arguments.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he is carrying on the business of manufacturing Gold, Diamond and Silver Ornaments through several Goldsmiths and other persons.  The 1^st opposite party is a pawn broker lured the general public by advertisement of attractive rate of interest on pledging the jewels.  So, the complainant pledged his jewels and customers’ jewels on several occasions obtained loan from the opposite party.  On 18.02.2004, the complainant to obtain loan from the opposite party pledged a Gold Saradu for a sum of Rs.6,000/- bearing receipt No.77835 as per Ex.A3 which is admitted.  The complainant also pledged about 5 items with the 1^st opposite party.   But the complainant has not produced any record.  Further the contention of the complainant is that while pledging the jewels, the 1^st opposite party issued receipts and assured that on repayment of loan with 18% interest and 24% interest for gold and diamond items respectively, the jewels will be returned. 

9.     Further the contention of the complainant is that on 26.11.2004, his hand bag containing all the loan receipts issued by the opposite party including vouchers and other papers related to the pledged jewels were stolen by break opening of his Bajaj scooter lock when it was parked in front of Mr. Ujjwal Mehta and Nirmala Mehta, the opposite parties 2 & 3 residence.  Immediately, the complainant lodged a complaint before F2 Police Station, Egmore as per Ex.A1.  Since the police has not registered the case, the complainant lodged several complaints before the Commissioner of Police, Superintendent of Police etc as per Ex.A2.    At long last, CSR was issued on 19.07.2005 as per Ex.A4.  Further the contention of the complainant is that he informed the fact of theft to the 1^st opposite party and instructed not to return the jewels to any other persons and issued legal notice to the 1^st opposite party dated:21.07.2005 as per Ex.A5.  The opposite party without issuing any reply issued auction notice dated:10.10.2015 as per Ex.A10.  Hence, the complainant issued further legal notice dated:21.10.2005 & 16.01.2006 as per Ex.A11 & Ex.A12 to the 1^st opposite party and legal notice to the Muthoot Finance as per Ex.A13 & Ex.A14 for which, the Muthoot Finance sent a reply dated:28.01.2006 as per Ex.A15.   The 1^st opposite party has also sent a reply dated:30.01.2006 as per Ex.A16 in detail.   

10.    Further the contention of the complainant is that he came to know that the opposite party handed over the jewels pledged by the complainant to the staffs of the opposite parties 2 & 3 by forging the authorisation letters.  For which also, the complainant lodged a criminal complaint but no complaint copy filed before this Forum.  The 1^st opposite party in collusion with the opposite parties 2 & 3 failed to furnish the details of the pledged jewels and not allowed the complainant for redemption.  But on a careful perusal of the records, except Ex.A3, no other documents produced by the complainant for the alleged pledging of jewels before this Forum.  The complainant also has not taken any steps for production of document; showing the name of the pledgor in this case to prove the allegation of pledge.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the complainant has not appointed anybody to a redeem the jewels pledged for a total sum of Rs.1,94,000/-.   But the complainant has not produced any iota of proof that he has pledged the jewels worth Rs.1,94,000/-.  

11.    Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party has not sold the gold saradu pledged for Rs.6,000/- through  auction.  No intimation also received by the complainant from the opposite party in respect of further auction of the pledged jewels. The value of jewels mishandled by the opposite party is Rs.6,00,000/-.  Due complaint is pending before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Egmore.  But there is no record except a copy of FIR, Ex.A21 on the basis of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Madras  in CRL. OP No.9693/2007 as per Ex.A19.  But the complainant has not produced any final report or the judgement passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Egmore before this Forum to prove the allegation of theft.  The complainant filed this case claiming for return of jewels worth Rs.6,00,000/-.  But the complainant has not stated in detail about the jewels and its ownership.   Equally, the complainant has not come forward to deposit the loan amount with interest proves that the allegations of jewels pledged and theft of jewels and its value are imaginary.   Further the defaulter (i.e.) default in repayment of loan not entitled any relief.

12.    The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the 1^st opposite party is a licensed pawn broker of doing the business of pawn brokering.   Further the contention the 1^st opposite party is that the complainant used to pledge gold jewels with the 1^st opposite party but never pledged to the tune of Rs.1,94,000/- as alleged in the complainant and notice dated:16.01.2006 as per Ex.A13.  This opposite party issued suitable reply notice on 30.01.2006 as per Ex.A16.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that after the receipt of notice dated:21.07.2005 & 21.10.2005 as per Ex.A5 & Ex.A11 respectively suitable reply sent by opposite party dated:26.10.2005 which was returned by the complainant with postal endorsement as ‘refused’.   

13.    Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that on verification of the entire records, it was found that the complainant had pledged jewels under the following three Invoices:

S.No.                             Bill No.                 Date                    Amount in Rs.

1.                     77835                18.02.2004         6,000/-     

2.                     79141                07.07.2004         3,000/-

3.                     80044                20.10.2004         4,000/-

 Even after repeated reminders and demands, the complainant has not paid any amount towards jewel loan obtained with interest and not inclined to redeem the jewels.   Hence, the 1^st opposite party issued auction notice to the knowledge of the complainant.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the allegation that the jewels worth Rs.1,94,000/- is absolutely false and the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence in this case.  Since, the complainant has not come forward to redeem the jewels, the opposite parties 1 to 3 had sold the jewels in action on 28.10.2005 and adjusted the amount.  There is deficit of Rs.681/- to clear the loan.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party has no connection with the complainant. 

14.    The contention of the opposite parties 2 & 3 is that the 2^nd opposite party used to send the complaint to one Kuppusamy, Kavel Chand and Praveen Kumar to pledge the customer jewels with the 1^st opposite party / the complainant suppressed the said facts and styled in different manner.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 2 & 3 is that the incident alleged by the complainant in front of the opposite parties’ 2 & 3 residence is a concocted one and imaginary.  The police never questioned the opposite parties 2 & 3. The opposite parties 2 & 3 have no knowledge regarding the allegation of police complaint.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 17^th day of May 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	26.11.2004	Copy of complaint of theft
Ex.A2	01.04.2005	Copy of petition to Commissioner
Ex.A3	26.04.2005	Copy of Auction notice
Ex.A4	19.07.2005	Copy of CSR
Ex.A5	21.07.2005	Copy of legal notice to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A6	01.08.2005	Copy of complaint agt. The opposite parties 2 & 3
Ex.A7	12.08.2005	Copy of complaint agt the 1st opposite party
Ex.A8	12.08.2005	Copy of complaint agt. Muthoot
Ex.A9	18.08.2005	Copy of letter from EOW II
Ex.A10	10.10.2005	Copy of auction  notice
Ex.A11	21.10.2005	Copy of legal notice to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A12	16.01.2006	Copy of legal notice to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A13	16.01.2006	Copy of legal notice to Muthoot
Ex.A14	24.01.2006	Copy of legal notice to Muthoot
Ex.A15	28.01.2006	Copy of reply
Ex.A16	30.01.2006	Copy of Vijaya & Co’s legal notice
Ex.A17	03.07.2006	Copy of Auction notice
Ex.A18	07.08.2006	Copy of intimation to  Pawner
Ex.A19	09.04.2007	Copy of High Courts’ Direction
Ex.A20	20.04.2007	Copy of complaint
Ex.A21	26.07.2007	Copy of FIR

 

1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:- NIL

OPPOSITE PARTIES 2 & 3 SIDE DOCUMENTS:- Evidence closed

 

 

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT