CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD
Dated this the 24th November, 2014
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SHINY. P.R, MEMBER
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 10/03/2014
CC / 35 / 2014
Kabeer.V.S,
S/o.Sulaiman.V.S, Vattaparakkal House,
Kottassery, Cheraya P.O, Kongad, : Complainant
Palakkad-678 631
(By Party in Person )
Vs
- Jithesh, Salesman,
Josco Jewellers,
G.B.Road, Palakkad.
- Roshan antony,
Executive Sales Head, : Opposite parties
Josco Jewellers,
G.B.Road, Palakkad.
- The Manager,
Josco Jewellers,
G.B.Road, Palakkad.
(By Adv.C.P.Pramod)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
Brief case of the complaint :-
The complainant in this case had approached the opposite party on 26/02/2014 for purchasing a pendent and a chain. At the time of ordering the product he demanded that he needed the product only if the opposite party provide it for 5% making charges. He had also brought a chain, coin and a pendent for exchange. The 1st opposite party consulted with 2nd opposite party and promised the complainant that they will only charge 5% making charges for the chain purchased by the complainant. Complainant had sold 50.660 gm gold to the opposite party and purchased about 2.26 gm pendent and a chain weighing 48.07 gms. Since the pendent sold by the complainant was having lesser quality, the opposite party deducted 25% of its weight. For the rest of the ornaments sold opposite party assured to pay Rs.2850/- per gram. Hence the complainant had to pay Rs.12,000/- as cash for the transaction done by him. When the complainant cross checked the bills from his home he found that the opposite party had collected more than 5% as making charges. Moreover the opposite party had paid only Rs.2,821/- per gram for the ornaments sold by him. The opposite parties had deducted Rs.29/- per gram from the market value and also deducted 25% of the weight for the pendent sold by him. Altogether an amount of Rs.1985/- was collected in excess by the opposite party from the complainant. On the next day (27/2/2014) complainant approached the opposite parties and demanded for the return of excess amount collected from him. But the opposite parties were not prepared to return the said amount. Instead they returned an amount of Rs.300/- saying that there was error in the calculation. They were not prepared to pay the market value of the gold for the ornaments sold by the complainant. Hence the complainant demanded to return back the sold ornaments but the opposite party told him that they had removed the said ornaments. The behavior of the sales executives was also not fair. Hence the complainant had approached before this forum claiming that the opposite parties had committed deficiency of service by collecting excess money and to return back Rs.1685/- (One thousand six hundred and eighty five only) collected as excess and also to grant Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered along with cost of this complaint.
Notice in the said complaint was served upon the opposite parties and all of them entered appearance through counsel and filed a detailed version denying all the allegations in the complaint. Opposite parties admit that complainant had conducted transactions at their shop on 26/02/2014. Opposite parties contented that complainant never demanded that he need ornaments only @ 5% making charge. The making charges of the ornaments varies depending upon the designs, weight and various other factors. Hence the allegation in the complaint that opposite parties had promised to pay ornaments @ 5% is totally false. No such promises was assured by the opposite parties to the complainant. The complainant had exchanged his old ornaments with new one. For this purpose the complainant had handed over a chain weighing 48.500 gms along with a pendent weighing 2.160 gm to the opposite parties. Since the quality of the pendent given by the complainant was of lesser quality the opposite parties had deducted the weight of the pendent from 2.16 to 1.62 and the total weight of the ornaments was considered as 50.12. They had deducted 540 mg of weight from the pendent sold by the complainant. Before the transaction the opposite parties had convinced the complainant that the old ornaments will be paid only lesser rate than the market rate. The transaction was conducted only after the complainant agreed upon all the terms and conditions put forward by the opposite parties. The opposite parties had never compelled the complainant by any means for conducting the alleged transaction. The complainant himself was satisfied with the estimate given by the opposite parties and willingly conducted the said transaction. For the very reason the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum.
The complainant had no complaints against the quality or quantity of the ornaments purchased from the opposite parties. Hence there is no cause of action for this complaint. The complainant had never approached the opposite parties with the complaints of excess charges as alleged in the complaint. The allegation in the complaint that complainant had approached the opposite parties the very next day and he was given Rs.300/- back as a mistake in the calculation is not correct. He had never demanded for return of the old ornaments. The ornaments once sold cannot be taken back and it can be purchased from the complainant only as old gold. It cannot be taken back as per the bill issued to the complainant. The rest of the allegations alleged by the complainant in the complaint are all denied by the opposite parties. The complaint lacks bonafides and there is no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. The alleged transaction was conducted by mutual consent of the parties and this forum does not have any jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of this nature. Hence the complaint had to be dismissed with cost.
Complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents. Opposite parties filed application seeking permission to cross examine the complainant. Complainant was cross examined as PW1. Ext.A1 and A2 was marked from the part of the complainant (with objection). Opposite parties also filed chief affidavit. Complainant filed application for the purpose of cross examination of opposite parties 1 and 2. Opposite parties filed counter stating that the 3rd opposite party had filed chief affidavit on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2. Hence only 3rd opposite party can be cross examined. Since the complainant was not interested in examining 3rd opposite party, IA 376/14 was not pressed. Evidence was closed
and the matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
ISSUES 1 & 2
We had perused the documents as well as the evidence adduced from both sides. During cross examination complainant had deposed that he had conducted the said transaction according to his own will. He had also admitted that on the day of purchase the rate of gold was Rs.2850/- per gm. The old gold was paid only Rs.2821/- on that day. The opposite parties contended that at the time of melting, melting loss will happen in the case of gold and such loss will be adjusted towards the weight of gold, instead of rate paid by them at the time of purchasing old gold. That was the reason why the market value of the gold is not paid to the consumers while exchanging old gold. This fact was convinced to the complainant before purchasing gold from them. He had agreed for the said condition and that was why, he proceeded with the transaction. Before issuing the cash bill a copy of estimate was issued to the complainant. But the same was denied by the complainant. The complainant had done calculations in Exts.A1 and A2 and the same was admitted by him during cross examinations. The complainant further deposed that as per the estimate the rate of gold purchased by him was Rs.1,66,748/-. The rate of gold sold by him was Rs.1,41,389/-. From the total amount a discount of Rs.15,253.14 was provided to him. An amount of Rs.1893.64 was collected as tax(VAT) from him. He was asked to pay Rs.12,000/- for the alleged transaction. From the aforesaid amount further discount of Rs.300/- was also provided. The opposite parties contented that the making charges for the pendent purchased by the complainant was 20% and for the chain it was 16%. But as per Ext.A2 the making charges collected for the pendent was 8.88 and for the chain it was 5.39%. Further the average making charges was collected @5.55%. Hence it is obvious that making charges was not collected @12% as stated in the complaint. The complainant had no complaints with regard to the quality or quantity of the gold purchased from the opposite parties. The opposite parties submits that making charges varies according to the designs of the ornaments. It cannot be collected as fixed amount for all patterns. Since the complainant had purchased Kerala designs only lowest rate of making charges was collected from him. No amount was collected in excess from the complainant by way of making charges or for the rate of gold purchased from him. Hence there is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. Complainant had also agreed that melting loss will happen at the time of melting gold. Only the marginal difference of such loss was deducted towards the rate of gold purchased from the complainant. Hence we are of the view that the allegations put forward by the complainant is without any basis and without the proper knowledge of the facts. Hence we find no merits in the above complaint. Complaint is dismissed without cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 24th day of November 2014
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/- Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/- Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Original Bill of Josco Jewellers dtd.26/02/2014 Rs.1,41,389/-
Ext.A2 - Original Bill of Josco Jewellers dtd.26/02/2014 Rs.12,000/-/-
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Witness marked on the side of complainant
PW1 - Kabeer.V.S
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost Allowed
No cost allowed.
