Arguments heard on respondent's objections about maintainability of petition and jurisdiction of court.
2. As would appear from the contents of petition, the petitioner has not alleged any defect in respondent's service. Long and short of the matter is that petitioner's only grievance is that when he is prepared to pay the loan amount with interest, the respondents should return his jewellery which they wrongly sold through auction.
3. Respondent's contention is that there was no defect in their service rendered to the petitioner. As regards disposal of petitioner's jewellery through auction, respondents sold the same after waiting for payment of loan and completing other formalities i.e issuance of notice in the press. They also deposited surplus amount from sale proceeds, of jewellery which reflects on their bonafides. With this background, respondents contention that petitioner's claim is not maintainable before Consumer court is shared by this court. Instead, the petitioner should seek his remedy from Civil or Banking court.
4. As already stated, the petitioner did not point out any defect in respondent's service. They offered to provide him loan and then proceeded to recover it out of sale proceeds of petitioner's jewellery procured through auction. As regards respondents' alleged malafides, the same are not made out as they deposited the surplus amount in customers' account which the petitioner can receive any time.
5. For what has been stated above, parties' controversy is found not maintainable before Consumer court instead, either Civil or Banking court seems competent to redress petitioner's grievance, therefore, the petition be returned for presentation to a court of competent jurisdiction.
6. After due completion, file be consigned to record room.