PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT 

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  According to the complainant, due to financial difficulties, he had opted loan amount of Rs.1,30,000/- and Rs.43,000/- on 14^th June, 2011 and 4^th October, 2011 from the O.P.No.1.  The loan was against gold ornaments and the opponent retained gold ornaments of the complainant having weight of 69.81gm and 21.94 gm as security.  The complainant was ready and willing to repay the loan amount and visited the opponent’s office for several times but the opponent gave unfavorurable and unreasonable excuses and did not accept the repayment amount. The opponents without giving any intimation to the complainant and without issuing any notice took drastic step and auctioned the gold ornaments on 22^nd November, 2012.  As there is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed this complaint to direct the opponent to return the gold ornaments of the complainant or reimburse the complainant with the sum of Rs.1,98,061.09/- with interest.  He has also claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental harassment and cost of proceeding Rs.10,000/-.

2)                The opponents appeared and filed written statement.  Payment of loan amount is admitted.  It is submitted that the complainant is not the consumer and the transaction is of commercial nature therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The complainant failed to repay the loan amount as per agreement.  The complainant never visited the office of the opponent.  Notices were issued to the complainant but the same were returned.  Again, the notices were issued and the same were received by the mother of the complainant.  In spite of notice, the complainant failed to repay the loan amount therefore the notice was published in news paper and auctioned the gold ornaments for recovery of the loan amount.  The complainant herself failed to repay the loan amount therefore she is not entitled for the relief as prayed.

3)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

 POINTS 

 REA SONS 

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- There is no dispute about the loan against the gold ornaments.  According to the complainant, she was ready and willing to repay the loan amount therefore she visited the office of the opponents but the opponent refused to accepte the payment.  The complainant has not produced any evidence to support this contention.  On the other hand, it is the case of the opponent that the complainant failed to repay the loan amount as agreed therefore notices were issued.  The notices were returned unserved.  Thereafter, again, notices were served on the complainant and the same were received by the mother of the complainant.  The opponents have produced copies of those notices acknowledged by the mother of the complainant.  The complainant has not challenged the signatures of her mother acknowledging the notices.  It is also not challenged by the complainant that her mother is residing with her.  The complainant herself has produced the copies of news paper showing publication of notice issued by the opponents.  It shows that notices were published by the opponents in news paper.  In spite of it, the complainant has not taken any steps for repayment of the loan amount.  Therefore, as per loan agreement, the opponents have auctioned the gold ornaments for recovery of the loan amount.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent.  The complainant herself failed to repay the loan amount therefore she is not entitled to file this complaint for return of the gold ornaments.

5)                In the written notes of argument, the learned advocate for the complainant has referred the meaning of ‘common knowledge’ and ‘declaration’.  As discussed above, notices were already issued by the opponents to the complainant but the same were returned back.  Again, notices were served on the mother of the complainant.  There is no challenge to the acknowledgement given by the mother of the complainant.  The opponents have also published notices in two news papers.  It shows that the complainant was having knowledge but she failed to repay the loan amount therefore there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opponents.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed.

6)                Thus, there is no merit in the complaint. Therefore, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint stands dismissed
2. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3. Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 8^th October, 2014