M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The complainant having failed before the District Forum, to get a favourable order, on the basis of the deficiency of service alleged against the opposite party, preferred this appeal, challenging the order dt.29.2.2008.
(2.) The complainant/ appellant, availed a jewel loan of Rs.15000/-, on 29.12.2003, from the opposite party bank, pledging 47 grams of gold, which was valued at Rs.25,850/-. On 28.1.2005, the complainant received a notice from the opposite party bank, directing to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-, which was paid on 12.2.2005, and thereafter when he approached the bank for payment of further interest, he was informed that the jewel has already been auctioned in the public at Madras office, for which no notice was given, no opportunity was given, to pay the amount thereby the opposite party had committed deficiency in service. Thus accusing, a consumer complaint was filed for the return of the jewel of 47 grams gold, or its value, with interest, in addition to a sum of Rs.50000/- by way of compensation, alongwith cost.
(3.) The respondent/ opposite party, admitting the availing of the jewel loan by the complainant, as well as pledging the jewel, opposed the case, interalia contending, that since the complainant has not repaid the loan, as agreed, a notice was issued, requesting the complainant to pay the entire amount, whereas he has paid only a sum of Rs.2000/-, thereby defaulted to pay the balance, that thereafter the opposite party issuing notice, making publication, auctioned the jewels, appropriated the sale proceeds, as per the rules and regulations, which cannot be termed as deficiency in service, thereby prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.;