IMPORTANT POINT
Person, who has committed deficiency is not entitled to be heard.

M. Thanikachalam, President— The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2. The complainant borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,100 as loan from the opposite party, by pledging his jewels, weighing 28 grams on 16.6.2001. The opposite party, in spite of repeated requests by the complainant, failed to inform the actual rate of interest, resulting non-payment of interest by the complainant. On 21.1.2004, when the complainant approached the opposite party to get particulars, regarding the rate of interest and amount payable by him, he was informed, that his chain was auctioned, for the default committed by the complainant. The opposite party has not informed the complainant about the non-payment of interest, as well failed to inform-notify, the actual date of auction, thereby they have committed deficiency, for which they are not only liable to return the jewel, but also pay a sum of Rs.50,000 as compensation. Hence the complaint.

3. The opposite party, admitting the pledging of the loan, and the payment of a sum of Rs.8,100, would contend inter alia, that notices were issued to the complainant, not only informing the non-payment of interest and principle, within the time prescribed, as well the date of auction, that in the auction held on 31.3.2003, one Anandan had bid in the auction for Rs.10,173, which was adjusted towards the loan amount, that the complainant has to pay still a sum of Rs.2,153, for which action is being taken, and that there was no deficiency of any kind on the part of the opposite party, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint, denying further averments in the complaint also.

4. The District Forum, receiving affidavits from the parties, marking five documents, on the side of the complainant, exhibiting 9 documents on the side of the opposite party, while evaluating the matter, deduced the conclusion, that the complainant has not only failed to pay the amount, even as per the indication available in Ex. A1, the principal and interest, but also failed to pay the amount, that when notice was given for auction, there was no response, thereby compelling the opposite party to proceed further in auctioning the jewel, which cannot be termed as deficiency in service. In this view, the petition came to be dismissed, as per the order dated 7.2.2006, which is under challenge, in this appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the written submissions, lower Court records and the order passed by the District Forum also.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued, that the District Forum failed to consider the inaction on the part of the opposite party, in not providing the particulars, regarding the fate of interest, as well also failed to consider that no reasonable notice was given to the owner of the jewel, who pledged the same while obtaining the loan, before auctioning, thereby offending the natural justice, which ought to have been considered as deficiency in service, failure resulted in rendering injustice, which should be set right by the Commission, which is opposed.

7. The complainant, who was the owner of a gold chain weighing 29 grams, pledged the same with the opposite party on 16.6.2001, and obtained loan of Rs.8,100, agreeing to redeem the jewels, on or before 16.6.2002. This document also informs that interest should be paid every month, though rate of interest has not been mentioned. Certainly the complainant, who had pledged the jewel, and obtained loan, should have known the rate of interest, and therefore, absence of subsequent communication from the opposite party, informing rate of interest payable for the loan, cannot be treated as deficiency in service, as incorrectly alleged. It seems, within the time stipulated, the complainant neither paid the interest, nor redeemed the jewels, by paying the principal and interest. Therefore, the jewel was auctioned by the opposite party, after the period fixed for redemption, in which one Anandan had participated and acquired the