BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

                        Complaint  Case No :1043 of 2009

                        Date of Institution:  24.07.2009

                        Date of  Decision  :  25.11.2009

Jaswinder Singh S/o Sh.Sukhdev Singh, R/o H.No.560, Phase-4, Mohali.

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

Gitanjali Exclusive, SCF No. 33, Ground Floor, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Party

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL       PRESIDENT

          SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA        MEMBER

          DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL     MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Kulwinder Singh, Adv. for Complainant.

  Sh.Yadwinder Singh, Adv. for OP.

PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

          Concisely put, the Complainant had purchased one Diamond Ring on 20.3.07 from OP for Rs.16,498/-. It was averred that she had given back the diamond on 21.4.2009 by non-returnable Gate Pass No. 36, in which the OP had clearly written that he would receive Rs.13,198/- by Cheque, which was promised to be delivered at his residence within one week. When after two weeks, he did not receive the Cheque, he enquired from the OP, who promised to deliver the same within 2-3 days. Ultimately, on 18.6.2009 he received a Cheque for Rs.10,688/-, which was Rs.2510/- less as promised by the OP. On enquiry, OP informed that Rs.2510/- was deducted as one portion of diamond was missing. It was submitted that it was for the OP to check and verify the contents of the diamond at the time of delivery to them i.e. 21.4.2009. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]        Notice of the complaint was sent to OP seeking their version of the case. 

3]        In their written reply, the OP admitted the factum of the purchase of the diamond by the Complainant. It was pleaded that he used it for more than two years and on 21.4.2009, sold the same to OP. At that time, he was told that 20% of the original price of diamond ring would be deducted and was also told that one diamond was missing from the ring. It was pleaded that after following the proper procedure Cheque for Rs.10,688/- was handed over to the Complainant. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4]        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record

6]        OP have admitted that a diamond ring was sold to the complainant for Rs.16,498/- and he returned the same on 21.04.09. The contention of the OP that it was a sale of the diamond ring by the complainant to the OP and, therefore, he is not a consumer cannot be accepted.  Annexure P-1 shows that the ring was sold for Rs.16,498/-.  When it was received back vide Annexure  P-2 the same amount of Rs.16,498/- has been mentioned and a deduction of 20% was made therefrom.  In the column for the “reason” it is mentioned return (Reten) and not purchase of the ring.  When the ring was sent by the OP to their head office at Mumbai vide Annexure R-1 the reason given is “buy back”. It, therefore, cannot be said if the complainant has sold the ring to the OP rather it was under buy back policy whereunder the OP purchased back the diamond ring sold to the complainant and offered to pay him back the amount with a loss of 20%. The contention of the OP, therefore, cannot be accepted as correct.

7]        It is further the case of OP that the complainant was told that one diamond was missing from the diamond ring.  The complainant denied this fact.  Annexure P-2 is the receipt vide which the diamond ring was returned to the OP.  In this receipt there is no mention, if any diamond was missing from the ring. The amount which was payable to the complainant after deducting 20% of the original price is mentioned as Rs.13,198/-.  The contention of the OP that a diamond was missing from the ring is therefore not correct.  According to the OP they sent the diamond ring to their Head Office at Mumbai, regarding which they have produced the receipt now marked as Annexure R1.  A perusal of this receipt also shows that the gross weight of the ring was 2.46 grams and this is the weight as mentioned in Annexure P1, vide which the ring was sold to the complainant.  It is therefore clear that when the diamond ring was returned to the OP vide Annexure P2 and was handed over to Mr. Karunesh vide Annexure R1, there was no diamond missing therefrom.  If any thing happened after the diamond ring was returned to the OP, vide Annexure P2 the complainant is not responsible for that.

8]        The complainant was entitled to the refund of Rs.13,198/-.  The OPs have however refunded a sum of Rs. 10,688, vide Cheque Annexure P3. The amount of Rs.2510/- has been withheld by the OP without any justification.  Not only that the amount was withheld, the OPs thrust this unnecessary litigation on the complainant. 

9]        We are therefore of the opinion that the present complaint succeeds, the same is accordingly allowed.  OPs are directed to pay an amount of Rs.2510/- along with interest @9% per annum since 21.04.09 along with Rs.2200/- as costs of litigation till the amount is paid to the complainant.  If the amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum, since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 24.07.09 till this payment of the complainant.

          Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.