The requirement of proper notice before the auction of pledged goods is crucial to uphold fairness in transactions.

1. ”This Revision Petition has been filed under S.21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act , 1986 (˜Act 1986') in challenge to the Order dated 18.2.2020 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (˜State Commission') in F.A. No. 225 of 2013 arising out of the Order dated 10.7.2012 in C.C. No. 190 of 2008 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore - 18 (˜District Commission').

2. Heard learned Counsel for the Revisionist Finance Co. at admission.
Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 10.7.2012 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 18.2.2020 of the State Commission and the Petition.

3. In the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the Revisionist Finance Co., to settle the matter on merit, the delay in filing the Petition is condoned.

4. In the matter in dispute here, the Complainant pledged his gold jewels weighing 44.40 gm. and borrowed a sum of Rs. 18,000 from the Finance Co. The Finance Co. auctioned his gold jewels without specific prior notice or information to the Complainant.
The question inherent is the selling of of the pledged gold jewels weighing 44.40 gm. of the Complainant by the Finance Co. without specific prior notice or information to the Complainant.

5. The District Commission vide its Order dated 10.7.2012 allowed the Complaint on contest, and directed the Finance Co. to return the gold jewels worth 44.40 gm. pledged with it to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards cost of litigation.

6. The State Commission vide its Order dated 18.2.2020 dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the findings of the District Commission. It modified the Award as follows: instead of directing the appellants / opposite parties to return the jewels weighting 44.40 gms, they are directed to pay the value of the jewels, as on the date of this order, i.e. 18.2.2020, to the respondent / complainant and also to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay Rs. 1,000 towards the cost as ordered by the District Forum.

7. It is seen that the State Commission has passed a well - appraised speaking Order. It has concurred with the findings of the District Commission. No palpable crucial error in appreciating the evidence, as may cause to require de novo re - appreciation, is visible. No jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible. Examining the evidence on record concurrent findings have been arrived at by the two Fora below, that the pledged gold jewels were auctioned by the Finance Co. without proper notice to the Complainant. The (modified) Award made by the State Commission appears just and equitable in the facts of the case. Interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is not warranted.

8. The Petition, being misconceived and bereft of merit, is dismissed.

9. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the Revisionist Finance Co. and to the Respondent - Complainant as well as to their learned Counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.
Petition dismissed.