CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.301/2013

Sh. Rishikesh Kakaria

R/o E-6/89B Sangam Vihar

New Delhi-110062                                               ……Complainant

Versus

Chauhan Diamonds

D-32 Central Market

Lajpat Nagar-II

New Delhi-110024                                               ……Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution          : 18.05.13                                                            Date of Order        :  29.09. 15

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that on 29.09.2010 he had purchased a gold ring with diamonds from OP for a sum of Rs.15,600/-.  The weight of gold ring was 5.63 grams @ Rs.1550 per gram i.e. equal to Rs.8,725/- and the diamonds value was Rs.5,000/- plus making charges of Rs.1,875/-.  At the time of purchase, OP issued a guarantee card and wherein it was clearly mentioned that cash back guarantee was equal to 10% and labour deduction i.e. Rs.1,875/-. He  contacted OP for returning the ring as per his guarantee card but  at the time of the purchase on 29.09.10 the gold price was Rs.1,550/- per gram but when he approached the OP in the month of January 2013, the gold price was Rs.25,500/- per 10 grams i.e. 2550/- per gram.  According to the present rates the value of the ring was Rs.17,920 as his ring was 5.63 gram @ 2550/- equal to 14,356/- and less 10% equal to 12,920/-  plus diamond cost @  Rs.5,000/- i.e. Total 12,920/- + Rs.5000/ equal to Rs.17920/- but OP refused to give an amount of Rs.17920/-  but the OP has stated that he can give him only Rs.1,2690/-.  The OP is not willing to pay the amount as per guarantee card. Pleading deficiency in service he has prayed that OP be directed to pay the amount as per the Guarantee Card.

Vide order dated 26.07.13 passed by our predecessors the OP was proceeded exparte.

Complainant filed his own affidavit in evidence as well as written arguments.  We have heard the Complainant and have also gone through the record very carefully.

Complainant did not care to mark exhibit nos. or annexures nos. on the documents.

Complainant has placed on record the copy of the estimate in respect of the diamond gold ring dated 29.09.2010 purchased by him for an amount of Rs.15600/- including guarantee card from OP wherein it was mentioned cash back guarantee was 10% and labour deduction was equal to Rs.12,600/-. He has further placed on record a letter dated 18.03.2013 sent to the OP showing that the OP was not willing to pay the amount as per the guarantee card issued to the Complainant at the time of the purchase.

A notice was issued to the OP  through speed post but the same was refused by the OP thus OP has the knowledge about the filing of the complaint but has not chosen to contest it.

Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the Complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of  the Complainant. Therefore, we hold the OP guilty of unfair trade practice, allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund the money as per prevailing rate of the gold including the diamond value to the Complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization. OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for harassment and mental agony undergone by the Complainant including the cost of the litigation.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 29.09.15.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                             (N.K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT