Nandakumar and Another Vs. K.V. Jayanand

Nandakumar and Another vs K.V. Jayanand

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram Decided Feb 23, 2012

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1108381

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1108381
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Judge: The Honourable Shri. Justice K.R. Udayabhanu President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. M.K. Abdulla Sona Member
Decided On: Feb 23, 2012
Case Number: First Appeal No. A/11/480 (Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. CC325/02 of District)
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nandakumar and Another

Respondent

K.V. Jayanand

Excerpt

.....is entitled to fix the market rate as on 2002 per gram and get the value of the article after deducting the amount due from the complainant as mentioned above. the matter was taken up by the opposite parties who filed the appeal over the above order and the state commission as per order dated:13.9.2010 in appeal-314/06 sustained the order of the forum and dismissed the appeal. it is thereafter ea.10/08 has been filed by the complainant seeking to get the order executed. the complainant has insisted for return of the gold ornaments as the price of the gold has shot up. evidently the opposite parties are willing to pay the value of the gold instead of returning the gold ornaments. the matter was agitated before the forum and the forum as per the order in the ea has directed the appellants to return the gold ornaments as such which is disputed. 4. we find that the case of the complainant in cc.325/02 was that he pledged the gold ornaments on 6.3.2002 and 29.4.2002 and when he went to the office of the opposite parties for redeeming the same on 2.9.2002 he was told that the ornaments were sold in auction and hence he filed the complaint in 2002 seeking return of the ornaments and also claiming compensation. 5. in the version filed the opposite parties has denied that they have stated that the ornaments were sold. it is mentioned therein that the opposite parties were ready to return the gold ornaments in the same sovereign to the complainant provided that the complainant is ready to clear a loan amount with interest and other dues. the forum disposed of the case on 24.10.2005 as already mentioned above. the matter was taken up in appeal by the opposite parties and the matter not prolonged. the opposite parties have not deposited the amount ie the monitory amount equivalent after the disposal of the case by the forum. the amount has been deposited only in december 2008. the opposite parties had not adduced any evidence before the forum. the counsel for the.....

Full Judgment

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

The appellants are the respondents in EA.10/08 in CC.325/02 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The respondents are under orders to return the gold ornaments pledged failing which steps are ordered to be initiated under sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. It is the contention of the appellants that as per the order of the Forum in CC.325/02 which has been confirmed in appeal the direction is to pay the rupee equivalent of the gold at the market rate as on 2002 and hence they are liable to pay the value of the gold only and that they are not liable to return the gold ornaments as such. It is also pointed out that the appellants had deposited the amount towards the price of the gold on 15.12.2008 before the Forum.

3. We find that as per the order of the Forum in CC.325/02 dated:24.10.05, the opposite parties/appellants are under orders to return the gold ornaments after receiving the principal amount of Rs.60,500/- + interest at the rate of 12% from the date of pledge till 2.9.2002 along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. It is also provided that if the opposite parties are not returning the articles the complainant is entitled to fix the market rate as on 2002 per gram and get the value of the article after deducting the amount due from the complainant as mentioned above. The matter was taken up by the opposite parties who filed the appeal over the above order and the State Commission as per order dated:13.9.2010 in Appeal-314/06 sustained the order of the Forum and dismissed the appeal. It is thereafter EA.10/08 has been filed by the complainant seeking to get the order executed. The complainant has insisted for return of the gold ornaments as the price of the gold has shot up. Evidently the opposite parties are willing to pay the value of the gold instead of returning the gold ornaments. The matter was agitated before the Forum and the Forum as per the order in the EA has directed the appellants to return the gold ornaments as such which is disputed.

4. We find that the case of the complainant in CC.325/02 was that he pledged the gold ornaments on 6.3.2002 and 29.4.2002 and when he went to the office of the opposite parties for redeeming the same on 2.9.2002 he was told that the ornaments were sold in auction and hence he filed the complaint in 2002 seeking return of the ornaments and also claiming compensation.

5. In the version filed the opposite parties has denied that they have stated that the ornaments were sold. It is mentioned therein that the opposite parties were ready to return the gold ornaments in the same sovereign to the complainant provided that the complainant is ready to clear a loan amount with interest and other dues. The Forum disposed of the case on 24.10.2005 as already mentioned above. The matter was taken up in appeal by the opposite parties and the matter not prolonged. The opposite parties have not deposited the amount ie the monitory amount equivalent after the disposal of the case by the Forum. The amount has been deposited only in December 2008. The opposite parties had not adduced any evidence before the Forum. The counsel for the opposite parties have relied on the decision of the High Court of Kerala in William David Vs. Linu Mary George 2010 (4) KLT 691 wherein in a family court matter the High Court has issued a somewhat similar direction observing that the purpose of the proceedings under the Family Courts Act cannot be to grant decrees to the seekers of justice when such decree would virtually deny them justice in its crux. The situation is some what similar in the present case also. In the circumstances we find that the opposite parties/appellants is attempting to have undue enrichment by making use of the appreciation of gold which will deny the complainants substantial justice. In the circumstances we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for. The order of the Forum is sustained. The appeal is dismissed.

Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum.

Same Court & Year Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thi... Same Parties Nandakumar and Another vs K.V. Jayanand Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge The Honourable Shri. Justice K.R. Udayabhanu President &Amp; ...