DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 08/07/2020
CC/67/2020
Gopalakrishnan,
S/o.Velan Theyyan,
Plavingal Veedu,
Ozhivupara, Pallassana,
Chittur - Complainant
(By Adv.A.Nijamudin)
Vs
- Joy Alukas India Pvt.Ltd.,
5/309-3, Fathima Nagar,
Mission Quarters,
Thrissur, Kerala – 680 005
- The Manager,
Joy Alukas India Pvt.Ltd.,
Palakkad – 678 014Opposite parties
(OPs 1 & 2 by Adv.U.Muhammed Mustafa)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- The complainant herein is aggrieved by the loss allegedly sustained by him upon sale of gold to opposite party when comparing the resale market price of gold with that of another gold merchant.
- Pleadings in short is that the complainant had, on 22/5/2020, sold 23.100gms of old gold to OP2. The said gold was purchased from OP2 shop itself two years ago. Price of gold for the purpose of resale was fixed at Rs.4127/- by the opposite party. It later transpired that on the same day Josco Jewelers, another jewellery, purchased old gold for Rs.4,175/-. The complainant is aggrieved by this difference in price and the resultant loss of Rs.1108 for the gold sold. Complaint is filed seeking difference of price and compensation for the alleged unfair trade practice.
- The opposite party filed version admitting the transactions but defending their actions on the ground that the fixation of market rate for the price of buying gold is a matter pertaining to company policy. The opposite parties also alleges that the complainant had full notice of the transaction and since the complainant had agreed to the terms and conditions of the sales transactions willfully, the complainant is estopped from making any plea to the contrary.
- From a reading of the pleadings the following issues arising for consideration
1. Whether the pricing of gold by the opposite party is, in the facts and circumstances of the case, arbitrary?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?
4. Any other reliefs ?
5. Evidence comprised of proof affidavits of both the parties and Exhibits A1 to A3. There was no documentary evidence for opposite parties.
Issue No. 1
6. Complaint pleadings are to the effect that the opposite parties fixed market rate of gold at Rs. 4,127/gram on 22/05/2020 whereas gold sold to Josco jewelers fetched Rs. 4,175/gram on the same day. Opposite parties fixed price lesser than the actual market value. This reduction in price, causing losses to complainant constituted deficiency in service/unfair trade practice.
7. Inorder to substantiate his case, the opposite party has produced Exhibits A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is the invoice issued from O.P. 2 shop. There is no information criminating the opposite party. Ext. A2 is a lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. A3 is a reply notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant in response to Ext. A2 notice. Ext. A3 is a statement of the stand taken by the opposite party and is in the same lines as that of the pleadings in the version.
8. In order to prove the allegations of unfair trade practice, the complainant ought to have proved
1. that there was a fixed market price for sale;
2. that the opposite parties had sold gold at price at variance with this fixed price;
3. that this variance in price caused losses to the complainant; and
4. that such a reduction by the opposite party was illegal/arbitrary/barred by some statute.
Except for pleadings nothing was forth coming to prove the unfair trade practice allegedly perpetrated by the opposite parties. Pleadings of the complainant is not backed any cogent evidence.
9. Therefore the complaint is dismissed.
Issue no. 2.
10. In view of the finding above we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
Issue Nos. 3 & 4
11. In view of the discussion above the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 21st day of November, 2022. Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Original Purchase invoice dated 22/5/2020
Ext.A2 - Copy of lawyer’s notice dated 3/6/2020 alongwith acknowledgment card
Ext.A3 – Original of reply notice dated10/6/2020
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Nil
Court Exhibit:
Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
