A.K.ANNAMALAI J. - (1.) Opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The Respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party for the direction of return of 20 grams of jewels of the complainant and Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and for Rs.1,000/- as costs and Rs.2,000/- towards advocate fee from the opposite party.
(3.) The brief details of the complaint are as follows :- Complainant pledged his relative?s gold necklace weighing 20 grams on 30.9.04 for a sum of Rs.5,000/- due to the urgent need of money to his family and taking advantage of the complainant?s poverty, the opposite party charged the rate of interest is 36% p.a. But there is no way than to accept usurious interest and with intent to redeem his jewels, he had accepted and received a meager amount. Complainant was paying the interest till the month of June 2005 and later he could not pay the interest and asked time to redeem the jewel and the opposite party have also granted time since he is residing in the same building where the opposite party is running the pawn broker shop. In the month of February 2006, when complainant approached the opposite party to redeem the jewel, to his shock and surprise, the opposite party said that the jewel was sold in auction and advised him to approach some one in Kodambakkam and redeem his jewels from him and accordingly he visited Kodambakkam, but there was no such person and thereafter the opposite party did not give any apt reply to the complainant and avoiding and evade to meet the complainant. The opposite party has cheated him by refusing to return his 20 grams jewels by receiving the amount due and opposite party?s practice in the trade is unfair and it is nothing but a deficiency of service. The opposite party has no right to retain or auction the jewel of the complainant without giving any prior notice to him and he cannot act on the complainant?s property as if his own property. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 17.5.06 and the same was received, but the opposite party replied that jewels were sold in public auction. The complainant in spite of his approach, the opposite party failed and neglected to return the jewels.;