DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of March 2012
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of Filing : 26/08/2011
(C.C.No.142/2011)
Sreeja.
W/o.Gopan,
Mundanjeeri Veedu,
Parassery Post,
Kongad Via,
Palakkad – 678 631 - Complainant
(By Adv.M.Ranjit)
V/s
1.H.D.F.C.Bank.
Door No.III/219,
Azhiyannur,
Kadampazhipuram – 678 633
(By Adv.K.A.Kailas)
2.Manager,
H.D.F.C. Bank,
Door No.III/219,
Azhiyannur,
Kadampazhipuram – 678 633 - Opposite parties
(By Adv.K.A.Kailas)
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
The complainant had purchased 6 gold bars worth 10 grams each from the 1st opposite party on 18/5/2011 for an amount of Rs.1,46,124/- at the rate of Rs.24,354/- per one piece. On the next day’s news paper the complainant saw the value of thankam for 10 grams is Rs.22,110/- The opposite parties have sold thankam higher than the market price. Then the complainant had sustained huge loss and the relatives, friends and neighbours had scold her. The complainant has sustained a loss of Rs.13,464/- due to the act of opposite parties. The father of the complainant also purchased thankam from the opposite parties. On 8/8/11 the complainant sent a notice to 2nd opposite party. But the opposite parties not replied the notice or returned the excess amount collected from the complainant. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to return the amount of Rs.13,464/- as the excess amount collected and pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pay the cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party’s version filed by power of attorney holder stating the following contentions.
Opposite parties admitted that the complainant had purchased 6 gold bars worth 10 grams each for an amount of Rs.1,46,124/-. The opposite parties denied that the complainant had sent notice. On 17/5/11 the complainant had applied with the 1st opposite party for the purchase of gold bar of product Mudra 10 grams 6 numbers for a price of Rs.1,47,600/-. In that application the terms and conditions of sale of gold bars mentioned. So the complaint filed before the Hon’ble Forum is against the terms of the application form signed by the complainant. On 18/5/11 the opposite party had sold the gold bars to the complainant as per tax invoice vide invoice reference 1528/11 – 12/11 Mudra 10 grams having 6 in quantity at the rate of Rs.25,909/-. 6% discount was also given to him and the discounted rate is Rs.24,354/- Thus the complainant had saved an amount of Rs.9,330/- in total. The complainant is liable to pay VAT 1.01% also which comes to Rs.1,476/- Thus inclusive of VAT the complainant is liable to pay Rs.1,47,600/- which alone is paid.
The opposite parties had communicated and displaying the price of the gold bars in the website and the rates have been communicated by the bank staff and on the basis of which the customer signed the application form and given the payment. At the time of purchasing the thankam, the customer had given the consent to buy from the bank after signing the application form and making payment suitably. Apart from that the opposite parties had given the general components inbuilt in Mudra pure gold bar pricing. The gold bars are imported from Switzerland with a 99.99% purity level. The components of pricing would cover the price as per LBMA for 24 carat, 99.99% purity level, Forex conversion charges, making charges, certification charges, packaging duties and taxes, transportation etc. The Mudra pure gold bar prices are updated every day on website for customer information. Thus there is no suppression of price committed by opposite parties. Wide range of gold purity level is available in the open market as 18 carat, 22 carat and 24 carat. HDFC Bank Mudra pure gold bar is 24 carat, 99.99% pure bar and the price is charged for purity level. The complainant had not compared the price with the product sold to him in that purity level. Hence the opposite parties not liable to pay any amount claimed by the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 and A2 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B13 marked on the side of the opposite parties. Complainant was examined as PW1.
Matter heard.
Issues to be considered are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Issue No.1 & 2
Heard both parties and going through the records, admittedly the complainant has purchased 6 gold bars worth 10 grams each from the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.1,47,600/- The complainant stated that on the next day’s newspaper mentioned that the value of thankam for 10 grams is Rs.22,110/-. But the complainant has not produced the newspaper on that particular day. The opposite parties have not raised objection to the value of thankam in the newspaper. The opposite parties stated the gold bars are imported from Switzerland, with a 99.99% purity level. Further the opposite parties stated that they had communicated and displaying the price of the gold bars in the website and the rates have been communicated by the bank staff. At the time of examination the complainant deposed that she could not know the price of the thankam seen in the website and could not know computer. Normally people saw the television and newspapers to know the value of gold or thankam. In the present case the opposite parties not produced evidence to show the value of thankam published in newspaper and television. In Ext.A1 shows the complainant purchased 6 nos. of Mudra 10 grams for an amount of Rs.1,47,600/- on 18/5/11. Ext.A1 no where stated that the opposite parties given 99.99% purity gold bar imported from Switzerland. In Ext.A2 dated 8/6/11 the complainant and his daughter signed the letter and given to the 2nd opposite party to return the excess amount collected. But the opposite parties not replied the letter. The opposite parties stated that the complainant has not sent any notice. The complainant has not produced evidence to show that letter given to 2nd opposite party. Ext.B4 the receipt dated 25/3/11 shows 5 gram x 25 pieces, 10 grams x 20 pieces delivered to 1st opposite party. Ext.B7 the Air Way Bill issued by Swiss International Air Line to HDFC Bank Ltd., shows the gold bar imported from Switzerland.
Ext.B3 shows that Form No.60 was signed by the complainant on 17/5/2011. According to the opposite parties 10 gram gold bar of 99.99% purity imported from Switzerland given to complainant. From the evidence produced by the opposite parties shows that they had given the mudra pure gold bar is 24 carrat, 99.99% pure bar and the price is charged for that purity level gold bar. Moreover Ext.B1 shows that the complainant has signed in the gold bar application form on 17/5/2011. It is evident from Ext.A1 that the complainant purchased the gold bar on 18/5/2011. The opposite parties stated that they had communicated and displaying the price of the gold bars in the website and the rates have been communicated by the bank staff, and on the basis of which the customer signed the application form and given the payment. No contradictory evidence produced by the complainant. The complainant has not produced the gold bars to verify that in a tamper proof pack with an Array Certification in weight and purity. In the present case there was no dispute regarding the purity of thankam. The complainant stated that the opposite parties had sold thankam higher than the market price. But the complainant has not produced the paper publication to prove the market value. Also the complainant has not produced the mudra gold bar to prove the imported gold or not. The questionnaire filed by the complainant and answers filed by opposite parties. Ext.B6 to B9 clearly shows that the disputed thankam was imported on 8/3/11. The complainant purchased 6 gold bars on 18/5/11. The complainant stated that the opposite parties collected Rs.13,464/- as excess amount from her towards the market value. But the complainant has not produced the newspaper to show the market value. So we cannot considered the excess amount of Rs.13,464/-. It is evident from Ext.A1 that the complainant has purchased the gold bar from the opposite parties. It is to be found that the complainant has no case that the opposite parties had collected more amount than that was show in Ext.A1 invoice. Section 2-C(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act clearly states that “a trader or the service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the services mentioned in the complaint, a price in excess of the price-
a) Fixed by or under any law for the time being in force;
b) Displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods;
c) Displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the time being in force;
d) Agreed between the parties.
Mere statement of a paper report is not enough to establish his case that the opposite parties had collected excess amount from the complainant. It is to be found in Ext.B1 that the complainant has purchased the gold bar after agreeing the invoice rates. The Hon’ble State Commission in The Manager Treasury, Main branch Vs. Balu held that mere production of a paper report is not enough to establish that the opposite parties had collected excessive amount from the complainant. In the above circumstances we cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
In view of the above discussions we are of the view that the complainant miserably failed to prove her case. In the result complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of March 2012.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of Tax invoice dated 18/5/2011 issued by opposite party
Ext.A2 – Carbon copy of notice dated 8/6/11 issued by complainant to opposite
Party
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
PW1 – Sreeja.M
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 – Copy of gold Bar Application dated 17/5/2011
Ext.B2 – Copy of Tax invoice dated 18/5/2011
Ext.B3 – Copy of Form No.60 dated 17/5/11
Ext.B4 – Official Receipt dated 25/3/11 of G4S Cash Services (India) Pvt.Ltd.
Ext.B5 – Premium settlement letter dated 14/3/11 issued MKSFinance, Geneva
Ext.B6 – Copy of Cargo receipt issued by Sindhu Cargo services Ltd. to HDFC
dtd.8/3/11
Ext.B7 – Copy of Airway bill issued by Swiss International Air line to HDFC Bank
Ltd. dated 8/3/11
Ext.B8 – Copy of Invoice issued by PAMP SA Switzerland to HDFC Bank Ltd.
dated 8/3/11
Ext.B9 – Copy of Packing list issued by PAMP SA Switzerland to HDFC Bank Ltd.
dated 8/3/11
Ext.B10 – Copy of chalan dated 11/3/11 for payment of customs duty dated
11/3/11
Ext.B11 – Copy of counter foil for payment of Vat dated 4/6/11
Ext.B12 – Copy of counter foil for payment of Vat dated 4/6/11
Ext.B13 – Copy of payment of transportation charges dated 31/3/2011
Cost Allowed
No cost allowed.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent
