IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
Dated this the 15th Day of September 2022
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.49/2018
Jayasree : Complainant
Karuthamthodath(Pattasseril)
Kuzhithura P.O
Karunagappally-690542
Kollam.
V/s
Director : Opposite party
P.S.Murukan
Zodiac Temple
Kollam.
[By Adv.P.K.Syamaladevi]
FINAL ORDER
E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M, President
This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
On 02.05.2015 the complainant purchased one silver ring having affixed Gem by paying Rs.20,300/- from the opposite party. On a detailed verification it was found that the price charged by the opposite party is very heavy that she has purchased the ring affixed with the Gem on the basis of the advertisement found in the newspapers. She understood that the advertisement published in the newspaper is to mislead the public and also to exploit them and therefore she approached the opposite party and requested to return its price after taking back the said ring. But the opposite party was not amenable for the same and also used filthy language against her that she caused to test the value of the gem affixed in the ring in jewellery and the proprietor of the jewellery told that the gem affixed in a ring cost less than Rs.7000/-. According to the complainant the above act of the opposite party caused much mental agony apart from financial loss to the complainant and she was also subjected to exploitation. Therefore the complainant prays to pass an order directing the opposite party to return Rs.20,300/- being the value of the silver ring affixed with gem and also to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.
In response to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version resisting the averments in the complaint by raising the following contentions. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. However the opposite party would admit that the complainant has purchased a silver ring with Yellow Zapphire Gem after checking its value and purchase price. Neither the opposite party nor his employees never compelled the complainant to purchase the ring and it is only her voluntary decision to purchase the said item. The allegation that the purchase price of the Gem is very heavy is baseless. The price fixed by the opposite party is reasonable and tune with the value of the item sold. Complainant was free to avoid the purchase of the said item if it appeared that the price fixed by the opposite party was unfair. If the complainant was of the view that the advertisement is a misleading one intended to cheat the public she would not have purchased the item. The complainant never approached the opposite party or at the showroom with a demand to refund the purchase price. There was no occasion for the opposite party or his employees to use abusive language against the complainant and such allegations are false. The allegation that the complainant tested the quality of the gem with another jewellery shop and found that it was worth below Rs.7000/- is false. The name of the jewellery and the details of such test is not disclosed in the complaint. Hence the said allegation seems to be purposeful. The complaint has been filed to seek vengeance against the opposite party. She has been trying to blackmail the opposite party for some monitory benefits and hence she claimed exorbitant compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- without any basis. The complaint is vague and is only to abuse the process of the Forum. The opposite party is a qualified trained expert in Gemmology who is holding a certificate of training issued by the Government of India. Germs are identified through various methods including refractive index, specific gravity, spectroscopy, inclusions etc. and are valued accordingly. The allegation that the opposite party is cheating the public is made due to the ignorance of such branch of science. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party and the opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with his costs.
After filing written version the complainant filed IA.319/2019 praying to amend the complaint. After hearing both sides the prayer was allowed and directed to carry out the amendment within 3 days. However for the reasons best known to the learned counsel for the complainant the amendment was not carried out nor filed any petition seeking extension of time to carry out the amendment.
In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in the deal?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the ring affixed with gem purchased from the shop by name Zodiac temple conducted by the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs as prays for?
- Reliefs and costs.
Though the case was posted for trial in the list the complainant remained absent and there was no representation, even though notice directing the complainant to appear and give evidence was served. In the circumstances we are of the view that the complainant is not interested in adducing any oral evidence. However the document produced along with the complaint are marked as Ext.P1 to P3. The opposite party has not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary. Though sufficient opportunity was granted, the learned counsel for the complainant has neither filed any notes of argument nor advanced any oral argument. The learned counsel for the opposite party has filed any notes of argument and also advanced oral arguments.
Point No.1 to 3
For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 3 points are considered together. According to the complainant she has purchased the disputed silver ring affixed with gem on 02.05.2015. The present complaint has been filed on 02.03.2018. There is inordinate delay of 10 months in filing the complaint. The complainant has not explained the delay in the complaint nor filed any petition to condone the delay. In the circumstances it is clear that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as contented by the opposite party.
The complainant would allege that the gem affixed in the ring is lesser quality and having less worth. As per the averments in the complaint it has worth only less than Rs.7000/-. But Ext.P2 copy of the bill/estimate produced along with complaint would indicate that the Gem affixed in the ring is yellow Zapphire 2.50 carat. The price per carat charged is Rs.7800/-. The total price of the Gem is Rs.19,500/- and the value of silver in which the ring made is Rs.800/- and the total price is Rs.20,300/-. The complainant has not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary to establish that the gem contained in the ring is not Yellow Zapphire nor it is having no such carat and the price noted in Ext.P2 bill is heavy. Generally price of the gem and silver will increase as if the price of gold increases. Now the complainant will get more price than the price shown in Ext.P2 if it is original Gem. The complainant has not made any attempt to sell or exchange Gem nor there is any evidence to show that she approached any expert along with the bill and got it tested. There is also no evidence to show who told the complaint that it is of cheaper gem than shown in Ext.P2 bill. There is absolutely no material before this Forum to hold that the gem purchased by the complainant from the opposite party is of lesser quality and it would not worth the price she paid.
On evaluating the entire materials available on record we come to the conclusion that the complaint is not maintainable in law as it is hopelessly barred by limitation and there is no merit in the complaint even if limitation is condoned. We find no merit in the complaint and the same is only to be dismissed. The points answered accordingly.
Point No.4
In the result complaint stands dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 15th day of September 2022.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext P1: News paper cutting.
Ext P2: Copy of bill.
Ext.P3: Copy of certificate of authenticity.
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil
Documents marked for the opposite party:-Nil
