M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite parties are the appellants.
(2.) The respondent/ complainant, pledging his jewels on 5.2.1990, 6.9.90, 8.10.2010, 14.12.91, obtained loan, being the member of the society. As per the terms and conditions of the loan sanctioning order, the debt should be discharged within a year, failing which auction should be taken, issuing notice. The opposite parties having failed to do so, appeared to have auctioned the jewels, on 14.8.2002, after 12 years, which should be construed as deficiency in service. Having realized the amount in the auction, they have issued a notice to the complainant, demanding a balance of Rs.16,835/-, which the complainant is not liable to pay, since the loan was closed, on auction. By the conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant not only suffered mental agony, but also suffered monetary loss of Rs.23,787/-, for which he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1 lakh also. Thus alleging deficiency, claiming a sum of Rs.1 lakh, a consumer complaint came to be filed.
(3.) The opposite parties admitting the pledging of jewels, raising loan, as well auctioning of the jewels, resisted the complaint, contending that the complainant ought to have paid the interest half yearly, failing which he is liable to pay penal interest, that in the public auction, only a sum of Rs.23,650/- was realized by selling the jewels pledged, leaving the balance of Rs.16,835/- payable by the complainant, for which arbitration proceedings was initiated, which is liable to be paid by the complainant, and this being the position, there is no question of negligent or deficiency in service, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;