BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 16/01/2012

Date of Order : 21/12/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 27/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Shortly stated, the facts of the complainant's case are as follows :-

On 20-04-2011, the complainant pledged 48.8 gm. of gold with the opposite party and availed herself of an amount of Rs. 65,600/-. In July 2011, the complainant had shifted her residence and accordingly the change in address was given in writing to the opposite party in July 2011 itself. On 30-11-2011, the complainant approached the opposite party for redeeming the pledge. Whereas, the opposite party informed the complainant that they had auctioned the ornaments on 31-10-2011. The opposite party has no authority in law to dispose off the pledged gold ornaments without reasonable notice to the complainant and without affording reasonable opportunity to the complainant to redeem the pledged gold ornaments. The opposite party has charged exorbitant rate of interest in the gold loan in violation of the guide lines of the Reserve Bank of India. The complainant had to suffer mental agony, loss and hardships due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. One lakh. This complaint hence.

2. The version filed by the opposite party is as follows :-

The complainant had pledged 48.8 gms. of gold on 28-04-2010 and availed an amount of Rs. 65,600/-. As per the loan agreement, the term of repayment expired on completion of 30 days after availing the loan. Thereafter, the opposite party had issued a letter to the complainant in the address mentioned in the loan application on 25-05-2011 informing the complainant to repay the loan amount with interest. The same was returned with the endorsement “addressee left”. The complainant did not approach the opposite party for redeeming the pledged ornaments at any point of time. Thereafter, the opposite party auctioned the ornaments as per the procedure of the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. The witness for the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on her side. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. One lakh from the opposite party?

5. Admittedly on 28-04-2010, the complainant pledged 48.80 gms. of gold ornaments with the opposite party and availed herself of a loan of Rs. 65,600/-. According to the complainant, the opposite party disposed off the pledged ornaments without reasonable notice to the complainant and without affording reasonable opportunity to the complainant to redeem the pledged ornaments. She maintains that the opposite party sent a letter in her previous address, though she had intimated the change in the address to the opposite party. On the contrary, the opposite party contended that they have sold the gold ornaments in auction after duly sending registered notice to the complainant in the address mentioned in Ext. B2 loan application submitted by the complainant.

6. Eventhough the complainant stated that she had duly intimated the opposite party regarding her change in address to the opposite party, nothing is on record to substantiate the same. Ext. B1 is the returned registered letter, which had been sent by the opposite party to the complainant before the sale of the gold ornaments. It is evident from Ext. B1 notice that the opposite party had sent Ext. B1 notice in the address mentioned in Ext. B2 loan application submitted by the complainant at the time of availing of the loan. In that case, we cannot uphold the contention of the complainant that the opposite party had sold out the ornaments in auction without any notice to the complainant.

7. DW1, the witness for the opposite party stated in his proof affidavit that the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant has auctioned for an amount of Rs. 1,12,898/- and after deducting Rs. 95,563/- being the arrear of the complainant, and the balance amount of Rs. 17,295/- was sent to the complainant on 13-03-2012 by cheque and the complainant had encashed the cheque on 04-04-2012. Since admittedly, the complainant had accepted the balance amount of Rs. 17,295/- from the opposite party without demur she cannot now further press for further relief. In short, no such relief has been prayed for except for a prayer of compensation which does not in a case form the corpus of the case. In the above circumstances having gone into the aspects of the case thoroughly, we are only to dismiss the case for want of cogent, coherent and convincing pleas or grounds. Ordered accordingly.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of December 2013.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Forwarded/By order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========