D.O.F.19.5.06

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:   President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:              Member

Dated this, the  12^th   day of  May   2010

CC.99/2006

C.K.Das,

Divisional Manger,

New India Assurance Co.

Divisional Office,

Thavakkara, Kannur.                                                    Complainant

(Rep. by Adv.V.K.Rajeev)

The Branch Manager,

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

KVR Tower,

Mahatma Mandir Junction,                                            opposite party

South Bazar, Kannur.

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs.5000/-, the excess amount collected with 8% interest and Rs.3000/- as compensation and cost of these proceedings.

            The case of the complainant in nutshell is as follows: The complainant had purchased 50 gms of 24 caret pure gold bar from the  opposite party bank under the gold purchase scheme on 1.2.06 for a consideration of Rs.46,420/-. But later it was learned that he was overcharged Rs.100/- per gram more than the existing rate and thus caused a loss of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.  The complainant contacted the opposite party several time and ultimately assured that they would refund the additional amount of Rs.5, 000/- that they would refund the same. But they did not settle the matter despite several attempts were being made at atlast complainant issued registered letter on 15.3.06. But they did not respond. The act of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. The non performance of the promise to settle the matter is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint.

            In pursuance of the notice sent by the Forum opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the main allegation. Opposite party contended that the complainant had purchased 50 Gms of 24 carat pure gold bar form opposite party under gold purchase Scheme. The said gold bar is Assay certified, has 20 carat 99.99% pure gold to purity is assured by the Assay, under 9999 certificate. It is a product of ICICI bank and the bank is entitled to decide its value. Complainant purchased knowing fully well the value of the gold. This opposite party has not made any assurance to refund the amount. So there is no question of paying any amount. Hence to dismiss the complaint.

            The main issue to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party or not?

            The evidence consists of documentary evidence Ext.A1 & A2 on the side of complainant. Opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1 and marked Ext.B1 on his side.

            Admittedly complainant  purchased 50 gms of 24 carat pure gold bar from the opposite party bank under God Purchase Scheme on 1.2.2006 for a consideration of Rs.46,420/-. The main case o f the complaint is that the opposite party had over charge Rs.100/- per gram and thereby he had suffered a loss of Rs.5000/-. Per contra opposite party contended that it is the product of ICICI bank and the bank has the powder to decide its value. Ext.A1 & A2 are the documents complainant depended upon to prove his case. Ext.A1 is the invoice on 1.2.06 which shows a grad total of Rs.46, 420/-. Ext.A2 is the notice sent by complainant to opposite party requesting to take back the gold bar and refund the sum of Rs.46, 420/- within 7 days. These documents do not prove that the opposite party has over charged Rs.100/- per grams. These documents are not capable to prove that the rate of 24 carat pure gold on 1.2.06 was Rs.8, 200/- for 10 gms. Until and unless it is proved that the value of gold was Rs.8, 700/- for 10grams on 1.2.06 other aspects cannot be considered. Till then the deficiency of service cannot be attributed on the side of opposite party. On going through the evidence available on record we are of opinion that the complainant failed to prove his case. Hence the issue is found against complainant.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs

                            Sd/-                  Sd/-                            Sd/-

                        President               Member         Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1Copy of the invoice issued by OP

A2.Copy of the regd. letter sent to OP

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1.Brochure

Witness examined for the complainant: Nil

Witness examined for the opposite party

DW1.Jacob Pradeep Norman

                                                            /forwarded by order/

                                                            Senior Superintendent

Consumer DisputesRedressal Forum, Kannur.