Orissa

Cuttak

CC/10/2017

Shaswat Ranjan Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandrakanta Jayantilal Jewellers - Opp.Party(s)

Self

26 Jul 2018

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.10/2017

 

Shaswat Ranjan Das,

At/PO:C.R.R.I,

P.S:Chauliaganj,

Vill:Kanheipur,Dist:Cuttack.                                                          … Complainant.

 

Vrs.

Chandrakanta Jayantilal Jeswlers’,

Nimchouri,Cuttack,

Near High Court,Nayasarak-753002.… Opp. Party.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member(W).

 

Date of filing:     24.01.2017

Date of Order:  26.07.2018

 

For the complainant :    Complainant himself.

For the O.P.                 :   Mr. P.K.Ray,Adv. & Associates.

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

 

                The complainant being a consumer has filed this complaint before this Forum against the O.P for rderessal of his grievances under the Consumer Protection Act,1986(Act in short) in terms of his prayer made in the complaint petition.  The allegation made in the complaint is with regard to defects in the goods purchased by him and deficiency in service provided and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P.

1. Case of the complainant stated in brief is that the complainant bought a blue sapphire stone of 0.840 gms. of carat 4.200 worth Rs.7,111/- on 04.11.2015 from the O.P Jayantilal Jeswlleers,Nayasarak,Cuttack, the O.P.

On testing the blue sapphire stone on 4.1.16 at “Gem Testing Laboratory”, Govt. of Odisha,Bhubaneswar, it was found to contain feathers, zoning and cracks.So it was useless to put on the stone.Then the complainant personally requested to the O.P several times pleading for returning his money in exchange of the damaged stone.But the O.P rejected all his requests citing that the Govt. Lab itself was not competent enough to test the stone. Then the complainant sent a lawyer’s notice to the O.P on 22.4.16.But the O.P did not respond.The complainant prayed for return of money in exchange of damaged stone (copy of test certificate on identification of Gem stone and retail invoice are attached)

2. The O.P entered appearance through his advocate and filed written version and denied the allegations of the complainant.  It is stated by the O.P that the invoice issued by the O.P is a contract of sale in which both the parties have put their signatures and agreed to the terms and conditions of sale printed on the backside of retail invoice which contains in clause no.5 as “please check each Gemstone/items before taking delivery and at clause no.6”Astrological Gem stones or ornaments made with these stones cannot be returned or exchanged under any circumstances”.  The O.P further stated that after taking delivery, the O.P does not allow the return back or exchange due to various reasons and the stone is likely to be damaged due to mishandling or get broken during its mounting by outside artisan.  The O.P took further stand that since it does not contain any stamping, it is difficult to know whether it belongs to any particular shop and the O.P permits exchange of its gold and diamond ornaments as the same can be remade because of ‘malleability’ and ‘ductility’ properties of those metals but a stone cannot be restored or repaired to its original shape and size if it gets damaged once.
3. We have heard from the parties at length, gone through the records and documents.

It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the Gem stone from the O.P and the Gem testing Laboratory of Govt. found defects in the Gem stone.The main contention of the O.P regarding the signature of the parties on retail invoice containing terms and conditions is against evidence on record.The complainant has not put his signature over “retail invoice”.Besides that the contention of the O.P that he does not allow return back or exchange after taking delivery of stone due to various reasons even without assigning a single reason which clearly indicates unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.The O.P also has not taken steps either to repair or exchange the Gen stone which amounts to deficiency in service.O.P being the seller of the Gem stone is liable for deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

                                                                                ORDER

The case is allowed on contest against O.P.The O.P is directed to refund the amount of Rs.7,111.00 to the complainant along with 8% interest from the date of filing of the case.On refund of the amount, the complainant will hand over the Gem stone to the O.P.The order shall take effect within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 26^th day of July, 2018 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

                                     ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

                                            Member(W)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

.

                  (Sri D.C.Barik)

                                                                                                                                     President