KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO: 172/2011

 JUDGMENT DATED:18-03-2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

P.S.Murugan,

The Managing Director,

Zodiac Temple,                                                  : APPELLANT

Near Mammen Mappila Hall,

Kottayam.

(By Adv.Sri.A.Santhosh Kumar & Sri.Sandeep.T.George)

          Vs.

Hema Francis,

Thottassery House,                                            : RESPONDENT

Changanaserry.

                                         JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

Appellant is the opposite party in CC.372/09 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The appellant is under orders to refund a sum of Rs.22,629/- to the complainant and compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.3000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order.

2.      The case of the complainant is that she purchased a yellow sapphire stone weighing 7.90 ct from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.22,910/- under the belief that it will improve her fortunes.  She had also given gold weighing 7.200 gms for making a gold ring to fix the stone.  The opposite party did not issue a proper bill but only wrote the price of articles in a piece of paper despite the request of the complainant for a proper bill.  Subsequently, she decided to change the pattern of the ring and went to a jewellry for the same.   The jeweler on examination of the ring told her that the stone is not a genuine one and she approached the opposite party for getting refund of the amount.  It is her case that the opposite party ridiculed her and did not refund the price she has sought for the price of the gem with 18% interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

 3.     The case of the opposite party/appellant is that the opposite party had supplied genuine yellow sapphire stone of 6.406 and that she had no complaint till September 2009.  It is in September 2009 she approached the appellant for substituting a new stone considering her then star position.  As it is subsequent to 3 yeas of purchase the appellant refused.

4.      The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant, Exts.A1 to A2(a), X1 and the evidence of the expert.

5.      We find that the Forum has relied on the evidence of the expert who is an Assistant Geologist at the Directorate of Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram who has reported that the stone tested has been identified as “Synthetic Cubic Zirconia”.  The expert was examined.  The complainant has filed proof affidavit.  The opposite party has not adduced any evidence.  In the circumstances we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal as there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum.

In the result the appeal is dismissed in-limine.

The office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

VL.