- (1.) Challenge in this appeal is the order passed by the District Forum in C.O.P.No.51/2002, dismissing the complainants case with cost on 30.11.2004.
(2.) The petitioner/appellant, by pledging his jewels, weighing 30.500 gms., in the respondents bank, borrowed a sum of Rs.8800/-, as loan on 7.10.93, for which he has prayed a sum of Rs.8200/- on three occasions, in addition fertilizer loan amount given to the complainants wife was requested to be adjusted, towards the loan viz. Rs.3500/-. Despite the amount was paid, without prior intimation, and without adjusting the fertilizer loan, the opposite parties have auctioned the jewels, which act should be construed as deficiency in service, which caused mental agony to the complainant, therefore notice has been issued, calling upon the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh, for which there was no proper reply. Hence the complainant is constrained to file the case, for the return of the jewels pledged, as well for compensation of Rs.1000/-.
(3.) The opposite parties, admitting the loan transaction, denying the payment said to have been made by the complainant, as well as the request to set off 3500 from the fertilizer loan, would contend, that as undertaken by the complainant, he had not redeemed the jewels within a year, though he had paid Rs.3500/-on 25.7.1998 , Rs.7500/- on 10.7.00, that the opposite party issuing notice and publishing the auction to be held in Daily Thanthi, auctioned the jewels on 22.8.2001, which cannot be termed as deficiency in service, and that the complainant, who had failed in his duty to discharge the loan, is not entitled to complain deficiency, thereby praying to dismiss the complaint with cost.;