DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 416 of 2016
Date of institution: 08.07.2016 Date of decision : 08.03.2018
Pervinder Singh son of Late Kartar Singh, resident of House No.1721, Sector 80, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Kalyan Jewellers, SCO 3-4, Phase-5, Mohali.
2. Kalyan Jewellers India Pvt. Ltd., TC 32/204/2, Sitaram Mill Road, Punkunnam, Thrissur-680002.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Dilraj Singh Bhinder, cl. for complainant.
OP No.1 ex-parte.
Shri Gurcharan Singh, cl. for OP No.2
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant entered into a Purchase Advance Scheme with OPs on 21.03.2015 through customer ID No.6101102355 and Account No.61004819. As per that scheme, complainant had to pay 11 installments of Rs.5,000/- each. Scheme was to mature on 21.02.2016. Complainant paid all installments in time to OPs. Upon maturity of scheme and on payment of residue amount, complainant was to get the chosen ornaments weighing 40 grams on the same date. Ornaments were delivered to complainant on 22.05.2015 (date erroneously mentioned in complaint in fact it should be 22.05.2016) i.e. about after 3 months of scheduled date of delivery. Price of gold keeps on fluctuating. Rate prevailing on 21.02.2016 was lower than that of the rate on 22.05.2016. On account of late delivery of ornaments, complainant had to face lot of harassment and inconvenience and mental agony by visiting OP No.1 many times. Complainant prays for grant of compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/-.
2. OP No.1 is ex-parte in this case, but OPs filed reply wherethrough claiming as if complaint is not signed by complainant and that complainant has no cause of action available in his favour. Moreover, it is claimed that complaint is false and frivolous. It is admitted that complainant paid all installments to OPs as per advance purchase scheme. However, it is denied that complainant was to get ornaments weighing 40 grams on the same date namely 21.02.2016. Rather as per condition No.9 of terms and conditions, consumer was to get the ornaments after period of 20 days of completion of the scheme i.e. 21.02.2016 by approaching OPs. However, complainant failed to approach OPs within period of 20 days. Rather it is claimed that as soon as complainant approached OPs and he desired to have particular design, then after preparation of the same within 30 days (requisite time under scheme), ornaments were delivered. Delivery was taken by complainant by waiving of his rights against OPs. Present complaint filed on afterthought versions. It is denied that ornaments given on higher rate than that of prevailing rate on 21.02.2016. Complainant approached OPs on 22.05.2016 and ornaments were delivered immediately without any delay on the same day itself. Other averments of the complaint denied by claiming that complainant has tried to blackmail OPs and prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and thereafter closed evidence. Counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/2 of Shri Channa Basava Raja A, Chief Manager alongwith copy of scheme Ex.OP-1 and thereafter closed evidence.
4. OP No.2 submitted written arguments. Complainant has not submitted any written arguments. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. Admittedly complainant opted for purchase of gold ornaments under purchase advance scheme, as per which 11 installments of Rs.5,000/- each were to be paid by complainant and thereafter scheme was to mature on 21.02.2016. It is not disputed that complainant has paid all the installments and as such it is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that on account of delayed delivery of ornaments by 3 months, complainant suffered mental agony and harassment, owing to repeated visits to OPs. So counsel for complainant contends that complainant is entitled for compensation for mental harassment and agony and also to litigation expenses. All these contentions vehemently controverted by counsel for OP No.2 by contending that price was paid on 22.05.2016 as evidenced by Ex.C-3 and thereafter ornaments were delivered immediately and as such there is no delay in handing over ornaments to complainant. After considering the pros and cons of rival contentions of counsel for parties and after going through records, it is made out that submissions advanced by counsel for OP No.2 has force.
6. Copy of purchase advance scheme receipt Ex.C-1 produced to show that maturity date of scheme was 21.02.2016 and complainant was to pay 11 installments of Rs.5,000/- each. Copy of the purchase advance customer ledger Ex.C-2 is produced by complainant himself to show as if last of the installments referred above was paid through cheque No.353121 dated 13.01.2016. Product details with selection date as 21.03.2015 and confirmation date as 03.12.2015 also endorsed on Ex.C-2 itself. As gold in question purchased under a scheme and as such terms and conditions of the scheme are binding on parties.
7. After going through Clause-9 of purchase advance scheme receipt Ex.C-1 = Ex.OP-1, it is made out that scheme can be closed immediately after payment of 11th installment, but in case all installments paid by consumer, then OP i.e. Kalyan Jewellers show room to deliver the ornaments on payment of balance applicable amount. Further as per this clause, in case the gold ornaments not collected within 21 days of completion of 11 months, then sale will be conducted at the prevailing board rate and the ornaments will be kept aside for the customer. Further as per this clause 9 itself, balance due amount must be paid within 12th month itself. However, in case the balance amount is not paid within 12th month, then sale will be cancelled and the amount remitted will be refunded by way of demand draft and will be sent to the addressee mentioned in the enrolment form through registered post. So from perusal of this clause it is made out that gold ornaments to be delivered after paying entire balance amount and collection of gold ornaments will be the responsibility of consumer (complainant of this case) within 20 days of completion of 11 months. The rate of gold ornaments payable by customer will be the prevailing rate on the date of collection. Complainant has not opted for refund of the paid amount, but he collected the gold ornaments on 22.05.2016 by paying the balance amount, is a fact borne from contents of Ex.C-3. So long as full amount not paid, OPs were not under obligation to deliver the gold ornaments. Rather as per terms and conditions of Ex.C-1 = Ex.OP-1, the gold ornaments were to be delivered on payment of full price amount as prevailing on the date of last payment and as such if OPs through Ex.C-3 demanded and collected ornaments on the rate on board on the date of delivery namely 22.05.2016, then they did the right thing as per terms and conditions of Ex.C-1 = Ex.OP-1. As only Rs.55,000/- were paid through 11 installments as evidenced by Ex.C-2 and as such certainly complainant was required to pay the balance of total amount of Rs.86,500/- on the date of collection of gold ornaments. Payment of that amount of Rs.86,500/- made on 22.05.2016 and by adjusting the part paid amount of Rs.55,000/- (in 11 installments), full price amount was collected by OPs on 22.05.2016 only and as such it is not a case of late delivery of gold ornaments by OPs to complainant. So certainly the complaint is misconceived. There is no deficiency in service on part of OPs and as such question of sufferance of mental agony by complainant does not arise.
8. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs. . Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.
Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Forum, therefore, the counsel for the parties are directed to receive free certified copy of the order by hand and it will be their responsibility to inform parties accordingly. This direction issued by following the principle laid down by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.956 of 2017 titled as Partap Rai Sharma Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), decided on 25.01.2018. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced.
March 08, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
