Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Ramachandran, vs Unnikrishnan on 31 January, 2012

  
 Daily Order


 
		



		 






              
            	  	       Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram             First Appeal No. A/11/580  (Arisen out of Order Dated 11/01/2011 in Case No. cc/06/1001 of District Trissur)             1. RAMACHANDRAN  PROPRIETOR,SREE DURGA FINANCIERS  THRISSUR  KERALA ...........Appellant(s)  Versus      1. UNNIKRISHNAN  CHORKATTIL,PUNNAMPARAMBU,THRISSSUR  TRISSUR  KERALA ...........Respondent(s)       	    BEFORE:      HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT            PRESENT:       	    ORDER   aKERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES             REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 
  APPEAL 580/2011 
  JUDGMENT DATED 31.1.2012  
 

                                                    
 

PRESENT:- 
 

  
  JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU     :       PRESIDENT 
  
 

  APPELLANT 
 

   
 

Ramachandran, 
 

Proprietor,  
 

Sree Durga Finance, 
 

Punnamparambu, Thrissur. 
 

               
 

                           (Rep. by Adv. Sri. P.K. Venugopal)  
 

                                     Vs 
 

 RESPONDENT 
 

   
 

Unnikrishnan, 
 

S/oChorakkattil Bhaskaran,  
 

Chorakkattil, Punnamparambu, 
 

Thekkumkara, talappilly Taluk. 
 

Thrissur.  
 

  
 

                                         
 

                              (Rep. by Adv. Sri. R.S. Kalkura) 
 

           
 

         
 

     
  JUDGMENT  
                                                     

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU      :       PRESIDENT   The appellant is the opposite party in C.C. 1001/06 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur.   The appellant is under orders to pay Rs. 10,500/- with interest at 12% from the date of complaint.

The case of the complainant is that he had pledged with the opposite party a gold ring weighing 7.4 grams for Rs. 2000/- on 7.5.2002, a gold chain of 11grams and 2 ear rings for Rs. 3,500/- and on 11.5.2002 a bangle of 9.8grams for Rs. 3,750/-  He had remitted the interest on 10.8.2003.  When he wanted to redeem the pledged  on 20.4.2006 he was told that the same has been sold in auction.  According to him no notice was given to him before the articles were sold.  He has sought for return of the ornaments and compensation of Rs. 5,000/-

The opposite parties have contended that the period fixed in his establishment for gold loans is usually six months.  If the ornaments are not taken back within 6 months notice used to be sent directing to take back the ornaments.  It is also used to be informed that if the ornaments are not taken back the same will be sold in auction.   Within 6 months the amount can be paid and the loan renewed.  The opposite party has not kept the records of the particular transaction as the records are usually kept for 3 years only.  Admittedly the complainant had came back to the opposite party's establishments only after 3 years.  The complainant was fully aware of the terms of the loan.  The ornaments have been sold after complying with all the conditions.  It is also contended that complainant is barred by limitation.

The evidence adduced consisted of Exts. P1 to P3 and R1 to R3. 

Ext. R1 is the acknowledgement card dated 1.8.2003 and R2 is the notice nil dated in a printed format wherein it is mentioned that in case the amounts are not paid and the ornaments taken back within 15 days  ornaments will be sold in auction.  Ext. P1 is the photo copy of the receipt dated 9.3.2002 with respect to the gold loan of Rs. 2,000/-

The Forum has disbelieved the case of the opposite party that he has not  been keeping records beyond 3 years as he has produced Exts. R1 & R2.  Evidently on receipt of Ext. R2, the complainant had cleared the interest as alleged by him.  There is lapse on the part of the complainant as he has approached the opposite party only after 3 years of remitting the interest portion.  Altogether the articles pledged would amount to 28.2grams.  The Forum has directed the opposite party to pay Rs 10,500/- treating the value of gold per sovereign at Rs. 3,000/- ie. the price of the gold prevailing in 2002.   As pointed out the Forum has not mentioned any thing with respect to the loan amount which works out to Rs. 9,250/- The complainant is also liable to pay interest on the amount from 10/8/03.  We find that there is considerable lapse on the part of the complainant.  The order of the Forum, in the circumstances can not be sustained.  The same is setaside and the appeal is allowed.

 

 The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.  

 

                       JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU ;  PRESIDENT     ST       [HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU] PRESIDENT