This C.D coming on before us for hearing, in the presence of Sri. V.Rama Rao , advocate for the Complainant and in the presence of Sri.G.Harendar Reddy, advocate for opposite party , ; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, Lady Member)
1. This complaint filed under section 12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased Gold Chain from the Opposite party on 8-4-2005, for an amount of Rs. 6300 /- and the worth of chain was paid to the opposite party on the same day and the opposite party delivered the chain and issued the receipt at that time. The complainant stated that within a few days the colour of the chain was turned out and it was not made out of pure gold and it was mixed with some other metal, as such the colour was fastly changed into black. Then the complainant approached the opposite party, but he did not gave proper reply and again the complainant sent elders to the opposite party, even then also the opposite party did not agree for
–2-
issuing of pure Gold Chain after that the complainant approached the consumer welfare counsel, Yellandu and they tried to settle the dispute between the complainant and the opposite party, but the opposite party gave false reply, and further the complainant prayed the assistance of police, Yellandu, and before the police the opposite party agreed to exchange the Gold Chain with pure Gold Chain, after many approaches,the opposite party agreed to pay Rs. 5,270 /-, but it was not total amount of the chain, and did not ready to exchange the chain also and further the complainant stated that the opposite party issued reply notice to the complainant with false, baseless allegations and from the beginning the opposite party acted with dishonest and fraudulent intention and to avoid further consequences the opposite party gave the estimation bill only to the non pure gold ornament, as such vexed with the cheating attitude of the opposite party the complainant got issued legal notice on 12-12-2005, in reply to that, the opposite party issued reply notice on 21-12-2005 with same points of earlier notice, and the complainant alleges that the adamant attitude of the opposite party is amounts to deficiency of service on it’s part and filed this complaint for redresal, and prayed to exchange the chain with pure Gold Chain and Rs. 5,000 /- towards damages and compensation and costs.
3. Along with the complaint the President, Cheyutha Consumers Forum, Yellandu on behalf of the complainant filed affidavit and xerox copies of(1) Andhra Bank ATM transaction slip dated 8-4-2005 (2) Estimation Bill dated 8-4-2005 for Rs. 6,300/- issued by the opposite party (3) Representation to the S.I. of police, Yellandu. Dated 22-10-2005 by the complainant.(4) Representation letter by the complainant to the President Consumer Welfare Association, Yellandu dated 27-7-2005 (5) Reply Notice dated 1-8-2005 (6) Legal Notice issued to the opposite party.(7) Reply Notice dated 21-12-2005 ..
.
-3-
4. After receiving of notice from the Forum the opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed counter by denying the allegations made in the complaint.
5. The opposite party denied the purchase of Gold Chain by the complainant on 8-4-2005 by paying Rs.6300/- and the opposite party contended that the complainant approached him and expressed only his intentions of purchasing gold chain and requested to give quotation and as such they issued only quotation to that effect on 8-4-2005 and the complainant did not purchased any gold chain by paying Rs.6,300/- and by taking advantage of estimation bill issued by them, the complainant approached the Forum for redressal and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. Along with a memo the complainant filed original estimation bill dated 8-4-2005.
7. The complainant filed written arguments.
8. In view of the above submissions made by both the parties now the point for consideration is whether the complainant entitled for any relief as prayed or not.
9. In the complaint it is alleged that the complainant on 8-4-2005 purchased gold chain from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.6,300/- and the opposite party denied the same and stated that the complainant did not purchased any gold ornament on that day and he only approached and obtained estimation bill from the opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint. The estimation said
to be issued by the opposite party was filed into Forum and it contains date and particulars regarding the ornament and the price of the said ornament, and on the said bill the price of the ornament was mentioned thrice and if the contention of the opposite party is correct that they issued only estimation why they have mentioned the price of the ornament thrice was not explained properly and moreover they did not filed any bill book to show that they are issuing separate
-4-
bills apart from the estimation bill and in the absence of any such clarification and proof the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
10. In the result the C.C. is allowed in part and the opposite party is hereby directed to exchange the chain with pure gold chain or else refund the amount of Rs. 6,300/- paid by the complainant towards purchase of the said chain together with interest @ 9% per annum from 8-4-2005. Further directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs of the litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Typed to dictation Corrected and pronounced by us in this Forum on this 12th day of December, 2006.
FAC President Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR
Complainant Opposite parties
None None
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
Complainant Opposite parties
Nil Nil
FAC President Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
