- (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Theni in CMP No. 176/2006 in C.C. No. 44/2006 holding that the complaint is maintainable. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that on 22.11.2004 he pledged 36 grams of gold jewels in the shop of the opposite party and borrowed Rs. 16,000; that the opposite party deducted Rs. 240 as interest and paid him Rs. 15,760; that on 11.5.2006 when the complainant went to the shop of the opposite party to redeem the jewels the opposite party demanded exorbitant interest of Rs. 7,015 and had thus committed deficiency in service. The prayer in the complaint was for a direction to the opposite party to collect interest as fixed by the Government, to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation for unfair trade practice, Rs. 10,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony together with Rs. 5,000 as costs.
(2.) THE opposite party filed a petition stating that there was no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite party; that the case before the Consumer Forum was not maintainable and in such a situation proceeding further with the case would be an abuse of law and sought the question of maintainability of the case be decided as a preliminary issue.
(3.) THE complainant, opposing the petition, took the stand that there was indeed a relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite party and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed. The District Forum dismissed the petition by order dated 5.12.2006 holding that there was indeed jurisdiction in the Consumer Forum to decide the complaint; that the opposite party was admittedly a banker lending money by taking jewels on pledge as collateral security in addition to obtaining promissory notes; that in the present case the pledged jewels had not been sold; that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Vimal Chandra Grover v. Bank of India,2000 CPJ 11 , wherein the complainant had pledged shares with the bank, it was held that the Bank was a provider of service; in that view of the matter the District Forum dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.;