IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of April, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
C C No. 123/2021 (filed on 22-07-2021)
Petitioner : Ushakumari,
D/o Gopalapillai
Santhi Sadan House,
Karukachal P.O.,
Nedumkunnam Village,
Kottayam.
(Adv.V.R. Raju)
Vs.
Opposite party : Anil E.D.,
Illamsseril House,
Champakkara P.O.,
Karukachal Village,
Kottayam.
(Adv.Ajeesh P. Nair)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The case is filed under Section -35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows. The complainant is a widow having two children. The opposite party is a Goldsmith. The opposite party was asked to make a gold necklace for the marriage of the daughter of the complainant. Gold having 22 carrot and 29 grams 100 milligram weight was given to the opposite party on 19.01.2020 for making the necklace. The opposite party promised to make a necklace having the same weight and quality. On 31.01.2020 the opposite party handed over the necklace to the complainant. The 916 mark was put on the necklace and the opposite party promised that the necklace is of 22 carrot and having weight 29 grams 100 milligrams Rs.8000/- was paid to the opposite party as labour charges. No receipt was given by the opposite party. The marriage of the daughter was on 04th February 2020. After the marriage of the daughter, due to financial difficulties, the complainant approached Gramin Bank Karukachal for gold loan. Then it was informed that the necklace is having weight of 28 grams 710 milligrams only and is of lesser quality. Complainant checked it with Josco Jewellery, Kottayam and it was informed that the necklace is of 18 carrot only and is having a shortage of 5 grams and 750 milligrams of gold in it. The weight of necklace is 28 grams 710 milligram is due to the addition of copper and other materials in the making of the necklace. By the act of the opposite party the complainant had lost 5 grams 750 milligram gold and the purity of the gold. The complainant suffered much mental agony, hardships and financial loss by the act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite party. The opposite party failed to file their version or to appear before the Commission to defend this case. The opposite party was set ex-parte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits A1 to A5.
On the basis of the complaint, proof affidavit of the complaint and evidence adduced, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
- If so what are the reliefs and costs.
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Points No.1 and 2 together.
On going through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complaint and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant had given 29 gram 100 milligrams 22 carrot gold to the opposite party on 19.01.2020 for making a necklace. The opposite party promised to make the necklace with the same weight and purity of gold.
The opposite party made the necklace and gave to the complainant on 31.01.2020. The mark 916 was given on the necklace. The complainant paid Rs.8000/- as labour charges to the opposite party. But the opposite party had not given receipt for the money paid for the labour charges. Exhibits A1 is the petition receipt dated 10.02.2021 issued to the complainant from the office of the District police chief, Kottayam. Exhibit A2 is the copy of the legal notice dated 30.03.2021 and Exhibit A3 is the acknowledgement card. Exhibits A4 is the copy of the petition Register received from the Karukachal Police Station. Exhibits A5 is the copy of the statement of the complainant received from Karukachal Police Station.
Eventhough the complainant had stated that the necklace was checked at Josco Jewellarry, Kottayam and found that there is a shortage of 5 grams 750 milligram of gold, the purity of gold is only 18 carrot and copper and other materials were added in the making of the gold, no evidence is adduced to prove these points. The complainant failed to prove unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party with cogent evidence. Hence Point No.1 is not found in favour of the complainant. The complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of April, 2022
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Petition receipt 10.02.2021
A2 - Copy of the legal notice dated 30.03.2021
A3 - Acknowledgement card
A4 - Copy of the petition Register received from the Karukachal Police Station
A5 - Copy of the statement of the complaint received from
Karukachal Police Station
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
