Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/172/2006

S.Muthukrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.P.Jewllery & Gems P Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

V.Mani

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   16.03.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :   11.01.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

            DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II          

C.C.NO.172/2006

WEDNESDAY THIS  11^th DAY OF JANUARY 2017

S. Muthukrishnan,

S/o. Mr. Sudanthiramani,

154, Thiruthuraipoondi Road,

Mannarkudi,

Thiruvarur District.                                              .. Complainant.

 

                        ..Vs..

M/s. K.P.Jewellery & Gems Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

11, Duraisami Road,

BBC Manor,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.                                       ..Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the Complainant           : M/s. V. Mani  

Counsel for the opposite party         : M/s. T.K.Rajasekaran & another

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and hardship due to deficiency of service and also to pay cost of the complaint to the complainant.  

1. The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

        Based on the advertisement made by the opposite party through T.V. channel and on the basis of attractive words the complainant had purchased the Lucky stone with Gold ring for a sum of Rs.13,800/- and after reduction of 200/- the complainant had paid Rs.13,600/-, out of which Rs.7000/- was paid in cash and remaining of Rs.6,600/- was sent by Demand draft dated 18.7.2005 drawn on SBI Mannrgudi bearing No.040949. 

2.     Thereafter, on verification of the real value of the stone through expert person, it is found that the real value of the stone is not even worth of Rs.1000/-. Immediately, the complainant approached the opposite party regarding the above said fact, the opposite party has not given proper explanation. At the same time the opposite party uttered with filthy language and the complainant was forcibly sent out with the help of the employees of the opposite party. Then the complainant sent legal notice  to the opposite party and for which the opposite party was replied on 14.11.2005 with false facts.  The failure of the opposite party to handover the value of the article is just and proper manner is gross deficiency of service and caused mental agony and hardship. Hence this complaint.

3. Written Version of  opposite party is  in brief as follows:

          On 9.7.2005 the complainant approached the opposite party with all his astrologers instructions and details to purchase a natural lucky stone and get the same based on his sentimental and divinely belief and accordingly the opposite party sold the same for a due consideration and issued proper bills.  Hence the said natural lucky stone was placed at the instance of complainant herein with his consent and proper bills were also issued.   Therefore, the opposite party denies all the allegations leveled by the complainant in his complaint.    Further,  it is wholly untrue that when he visited the opposite party the complainant was treated with filthy language, kicked, beaten and forcibly sent out with the help of the employees of the opposite party, which is unknown reasons, and no business establishment will describes its own customers, which is against the any trade policy and development of any business.   Therefore, no such incidence taken place as navigated with imaginations by the complainant herein and more over the complainant conveniently omitted to mention on which date he has visited and whom he met the opposite party and were not clear and specific.

4.     The opposite party further submits that the cost of the stone is not even Rs.200/- as per some expert known to the complainant, which is practically baseless, without proof and meaningless.    Each and every natural stone differ from one another based on its naturality, luster, quality, origin, size, transparency and etc.  which involves so many factors to fix a price of the same to justify and stand to the reason.   The complainant not even established any of the factor with substantial evidence or document.   Further on 9.7.2005 itself the complainant was given a cash order and subsequently on 25.7.2005 issued cash bill.   In both the bills the opposite party specifically notified the various conditions of returning the purchased goods.   Whereas, the complainant after receiving the goods on 25.7.2005 used the same months together and issued legal notice on 25.10.2005 after the lapse of 4 months.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.    In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit and his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party not filed and no documents marked on the side of the opposite party.

6.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

     Opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

7. Point No.1

        According to the case of the complainant is that by means of attractive advertisement he has purchased lucky stone with Gold ring on payment of Rs.13,600/- from the opposite party and thereafter on verification it was found that the lucky stone is not even worth of Rs.1000/- and the complainant approached the opposite party regarding the above said fact, the opposite party has not given proper explanation and refused to return the amount which was paid towards the lucky stone which clearly amounts for deficiency of service.

8.     On the other hand, it is vehemently contended by the opposite party by means of written version that the allegation made by the complainant is utterly false and baseless and in fact each and every natural stone differ from one another based on its neutrality, luster, quality, origin, size, transparency and etc and which involves so many factors to fix a price of the same to justify and stand to the reason and whereas the complainant after receiving the goods on 25.7.2005 used the same for some months together and issued legal notice on 25.10.2005 after the lapse of four months is unsustainable and therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

9.     At this juncture, it  goes without saying that it is bound duty of the complainant to prove the allegation made in the complaint by means of acceptable evidence.   In such circumstances the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and marked the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3.  It is learnt from the evidence of the complainant that  in order to prove the purchase of the lucky stone form the opposite party Ex.A1 bill issued by the opposite party is marked.   On seeing Ex.A2, it is crystal clear that the receipt was given by the opposite party.  Not only that, it is not disputed by the opposite party either in reply notice Ex.A3 and in the written version.  Therefore, there is no dispute at all regarding the purchase of the lucky stone as well as gold ring for the cost price paid by the complainant as alleged in the complaint.

10.    The next thing stated by the complainant is that, after purchase the stone on verification through expert person it is found that the value of the stone is not even worth of Rs.1,000/- and it is not original one.  Therefore, the complainant has sent Ex.A2 legal notice to the opposite party and the claim of the stone amount which was received by the opposite party through Ex.A1.  For which, the opposite party has sent Ex.A3 reply by denying the allegation made in Ex.A2 and the same denial put forth in the written version also.

11.    At the outset, on careful perusal of the evidence of the complainant it is proved that the stone is not worth for the amount paid to the opposite party.  In such a position, the opposite party neither appeared before this forum nor chosen to place his evidence to disprove the allegation in the complaint and also failed to enlighten that the lucky stone sold by him is proper one and worth about Rs.10,000/- which was received by the opposite party from the complainant.  Mere the statement in written version is not sufficient to accept that the allegation made in the complaint is false and baseless.   Unless and otherwise proper evidence adduced by the opposite party before this forum the plea taken by the opposite party cannot be hold good.   Therefore it is crystal clear that there is no contra evidence and hence this forum can draw adverse inference.

12.    In the light of the above facts and circumstances this forum concludes that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party.  Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

13.    POINT No.2

          As per the decision taken in point No.1, the complainant is entitled for reasonable compensation for causing mental agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party with cost. Thus the point No.2 is also answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.   Accordingly the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. 

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a till the date of payment.  

         Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  11^th  day  of  January 2017.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 25.7.2005  - Copy of bill issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A2- 25.11.2005         - Copy of legal notice to the opposite party.

Ex.A3- 14.11.2005         - Copy of reply notice issued by the opposite party.  

 

Opposite party’s side document: -   .. Nil.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.