ORDER

1.      Heard Mr. Devmani Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. 

2.      Above revision has been filed against the order of Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, dated 01.03.2022, passed in First Appeal No.345 of 2013 (arising from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, dated 28.06.2010 passed in CC/261/2009), whereby District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners (opposite parties) to return the gold jewellery of 8 sovereign to the complainant after receiving Rs.48500/- with interest @16.5% per annum from 13.10.2008 to 31.03.2008, pay compensation of Rs.25000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3000/- and State Commission has dismissed the appeal and the order dated 19.01.2023 passed in Review Application CMP No.162 of 2022, filed by the petitioners, modified the order dated 28.06.2010 to the extent that instead of returning gold jewellery to pay value of 8 sovereign gold “as on today”.

3.      The office has reported 366 days in filing the revision. The petitioners have filed IA/7505/2023, for condoning the delay. Subject to objection of the respondent, delay in filing the revision is condoned and the revision was heard on admission.

4.      The respondent filed CC/261/2009 for directing the petitioners to (i) return his gold jewellery of 8 sovereign after receiving Rs.48500/-, from him and close his loan account; (ii) pay Rs.100000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) Pay Rs.100000/- as compensation for committing unfair trade practice; (iv) pay litigation costs; and (v) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The complainant stated that he took gold loan of Rs.48500/- on 13.10.2008, from the branch of opposite party-1 after pledging his 8 sovereign jewel gold. Opposite parties-3 and 4 opened Loan Account No.139796, in his name and after checking his jewellery gave loan amount after deducting Rs.500/- as process fee on the interest @16.5% per annum. After three months of taking loan, the complainant approached opposite parties-3 and 4 in the branch office of opposite party-1 to close his loan account. Opposite parties-3 and 4 informed that instead of foreclosing the loan account, if the complainant pay interest of that period, then his gold loan would be extended. On which, the complainant paid interest amount on the loan. The complainant again visited branch of opposite party-1 in 3^rd week of March, 2009 and told opposite parties-3 and 4 to close his loan account after taking loan amount along with interest. Then opposite parties-3 and 4 asked him to come in April, 2009. The complainant visited numerous times, including on 24.04.2009 for closing his loan account but opposite parties-3 and 4 asked to come in May, 2009. The complainant received a letter dated 30.04.2009 along with draft of Rs.29092.29, informing that his jewellery was sold in auction and after adjusting dues of the bank, balance amount was returned to the complainant. The complainant gave a legal notice dated 04.05.2009 to the opposite parties that without giving any notice to him they had illegally sold his gold jewellery, value of which was more than Rs.one lac. But the opposite parties did not respond, then the complaint was filed.

5.      The petitioners filed their written reply and contested the complaint. The petitioners stated that the complainant was sanctioned loan of Rs.48500/- on 07.06.2008, on the interest @16.5% per annum from the branch of opposite party-1 after pledging his 8 sovereign jewel gold. Loan was renewed on 13.10.2008. The complainant neither paid the monthly interest nor came to foreclose his loan account after three months. The bank gave notice dated 16.02.2009 to the complainant to foreclose the loan account but he did not respond. Then the bank gave notice dated 03.03.2009, informing the complainant that his gold ornament would be auctioned. Thereafter, the bank gave pre-sale notice