MUTHOOT BANKERS Vs. N SHADADHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in OP No.208/97 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha is the appellant in appeal No.764/98 whereas the opposite party in the said OP is the appellant in Appeal 617/98.

(2.) The complainant approached the District Forum with the grievance that, he had pledged 72 grams of gold ornaments with the opposite party on 25.4.1994 and raised a loan of Rs.10,000/-. Then on 23.5.1994 he pledged another 40 grams of gold ornaments and raised a further loan of Rs.12,000/-. While so, on 16.8.1996 he received a notice from the opposite party demanding him to pay the arrears of interest on the loan within 7 days, failing which the gold ornaments would be sold on 16.8.1996. The date of the notice was 9.8.1996. The complainant could not raise the amount immediately and, therefore, he approached the opposite party and requested the opposite party to postpone the auction. According to the complainant, the opposite party was not prepared to postpone the auction. He alleged, after a few days he met the manager of the opposite party and requested him to furnish him with the details of the auction. As the complainant did not get any communication, he sent a notice on 1.5.1997 to furnish details of the auction. They did not even sent a reply. He alleged, on the date of the auction maintained by the opposite party, the market price of gold was Rs.450/- per gram and gold ornaments would have fetched Rs.59,400/- if they were sold in open market. Inasmuch as they did not comply with the demand of the complainant in the matter of sale of the gold ornaments, there is deficiency of service and he claimed compensation. The opposite party filed their version in which they denied the allegations in the complaint and sought to maintain, that the gold ornaments were taken for auction on 8.11.1996. It was also contended by the opposite party, in their version that, the opposite party had conducted the auction after complying with the required formalities. Therefore, they maintained there is no deficiency of services. The complainant gave evidence as P. W.1 and produced Ext. A1 to A3. On behalf of the opposite party R. W.1 was examined and R1 and R2 were marked.

(3.) The District Forum found deficiency of service and, therefore, made a direction to refund Rs.15,000/- with 12% interest from the date of the order till realisation, in addition awarded Rs.500/- as compensation for mental agony with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same the opposite party filed the appeal. The complainant in his appeal seek to maintain the compensation awarded is inadequate.