DATE OF FILING : 11.11.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 08.01.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 13.05.2015.
Bitasta Debnath,
daughter of Bankim Debnath.
- Prativa Debnath,
wife of Bankim Debnath,
- Barna Debnath Saha,
daughter of Bankim Debnath,
all residing at 78/1/13, Thakur Ramkrishna Lane,
P.S. Shibpur, District Howrah,
PIN 711104…………………………………………………… COMPLAINANTS.
Versus -
Debashish Das,
proprietor of Sri Bishnu Jewelery,
66, Sarat Chatterjee Road, P.S. Shibpur,
Distgrict Howrah,
PIN 711104,
Phone no. ( M ) 9830120690……………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
Member In Charge : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Member : Shri Subrata Sarker.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainants, three in number,by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) have prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to make the gold ornaments as per order with hallmark sign, to pay Rs. 60,000/- as compensation alongwith other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Complainant nos. 1 & 3 deposited some gold weighing 13.24 gms. with stone with the o.p. for making some new ornaments and the o.p. issued receipts on different dates vide Annexures.Also complainant no. 2 placed an order with o.p. for making a new nose pin with stone At the time of takingorder, theo.p. agreed to deliver the ornaments within one month butfailed. After lapse of few months, the o.p. informedthe complainant that one gold ear ring was lost/theft from the custody of the o.p. Complainants wanted to lodge F.I.R. but the o.p. requested them not to file any F.I.R. and the o.p.agreed to compensate the complainants by manufacturing hallmark ornaments.O.p. delivered onegold locket as per order dated 30.4.2014 with hall markto complainant no. 1 but there was some manufacturing defect and complainant alleged that the hall mark certificate provided by o.p. is not at all genuine. Moreover, after weighing all the ornaments in question from an outside gold shop it is was found thato.p. delivered lesser amount of gold ornaments than he took making charges for the amount of gold ornaments. So complainant requested the o.p. to remove the defects but the o.p. remained silent without doing needful. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainants jointly filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.
- Notice was served. The o.p. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard on contest.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint and its annexures and noted its contents and the written version sworn on affidavit filed by o.p. and noted its contents. From the Annexure filed by the o.p. it is clear that o.p. has admitted the fact that the complainants deposited 13.240 gms. old gold and placed a new order for making a nose pin weighing 1.460 gm. totaling 14.700 gms. It is also claimed by the o.p. that 17.120 gms. of gold ornaments were delivered to the complainants as per the same Annexure. So complainants had to pay the purchase price of new gold for 2.420 gms.( 17.120 gms. – 14.700 gms. ) and making charges for the entire 17.120 gms. ornaments which are also detailed in the same Annexure. O.p. has also submitted the xerox copy of the Certificate of Verification dated 21.8.2015 given by Inspector of Legal Metrology, Government of West Bengal. But the hall mark authentication certificate provided by the o.p. cannot be accepted as genuine one because there is no BIS sign. When the o.p. received the higher making charge from the complainants, it was the boundant duty of the o.p. to prepare the ornament in question with hallmark and other ornaments having no manufacturing defect. But o.p. has failed to do so. The ornaments, where were delivered by the o.p., cannot be even used by the complainants in a proper manner. And complainants are very much required to repair the same from another shop. For the women gold ornaments carry an utmost emotional value along with its monetary value. O.p. disregarded and disrespected the complainants’ that very emotional value which is nothing but a gross negligence on their part. O.p. has miserably failed to discharge his duty which certainly amounts to deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice on their part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period. Undoubtedly, o.p.’s arbitrary and whimsical action caused severe mental, physical and financial loss to the complainants. So, we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainants should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 577 of 2014 ( HDF 577 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P.
That the o.p. is directed to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs within 30 days from the date of this order.
That the o.p. is further directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum till full realization.
The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member In Charge, C.D.R.F.,
Howrah.
