Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the order dated 9.10.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short “the State Commission”) wherein the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner and has affirmed the order dated 30.6.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolar (for short “the District Forum”).  The District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of ₹3,92,842/- being the excess amount of the gold ornaments, which were pledged and auctioned by the Petitioner after adjustment of the entire amount of loan and interest payable by the Complainant.  Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the District Forum had erred in law in applying the current market rate when the Complaint was being decided.  According to him this plea was specifically raised in the grounds of Appeal before the State Commission but the State Commission had not dealt with it.  On a specific query being made as to whether this point was raised and argued by the learned Counsel before the State Commission, the reply was that it was argued.  However, from the Memo of Revision Petition, we find that no such plea has been taken by the Petitioner before us.  Neither any certificate nor a letter of the arguing counsel, who had appeared before the State Commission, has been filed.  Therefore, this plea cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage.

        The State Commission, while deciding the Appeal, has recorded the following findings :

“On perusal of the impugned order it is seen that to the letters addressed by the complainant to the OP on 06.06.2011 and 05.08.2011 requesting to give the details of auction, OP has failed to reply the same and even in the pleadings the OP has not stated as to on what date they sold the gold on auction, who are the bidders who participated in the bid, what is the bid amount and who was the highest bidder etc., and even the details are not furnished before the Forum.  Further it is observed that, the contention of the OP is that “they have written letters to the complainant and it was returned with an endorsement as “not claimed”.  Hence, the contention of the complainant that without proper service of notice they have sold the gold ornaments has to be accepted.  Further they have stated that they have notified the auction in the paper, none of these things are stated that the complainant has borrowed a particular loan on a particular date by pledging particular weight of gold, particular amount is due, particular rate of interest, default in repayment of loan amount and interest and if the amount is not paid they will sell the gold ornaments etc., and thus, it is held that the manner in which the alleged auction is held itself discloses that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  In the circumstances, the District Forum considering the documents filed before it has assessed value of gold pledged at ₹8,21,115/- and after adjusting the loan payable and also the amount already paid ₹24,457/-, the balance is assessed at ₹3,92,842/- which is just and proper.  In the foregoing circumstances, impugned order does not call for any interference.”

        From a perusal of the aforesaid findings, we find that the State Commission had examined the entire material and evidence on record and the findings recorded by the State Commission, affirming the findings of the District Forum, cannot be said to suffer from any material irregularity or illegality, which requires any interference by this Commission in exercise of our Revisional jurisdiction.

        The Revision Petition lacks merit and is dismissed.