Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

RBT/CC/969/2018

Smt Shashi Lata Ahuja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kalyan Jewellers - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Singh

05 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATHGARH  SAHIB.

 

                                                             RBT/ No

                                                             Complaint Case No:969 of 2018

     Date of Institution: 14.9.2018

      Date of Decision: 05.09.2022

 

Smt. Shashi Lata Ahuja, Wife of Pervinder Singh, Resident of House no.1721, Sector-80. SAS Nagar(Mohai)

...........Complainant

 

Vs.

1. Kalyan Jewellers, SCO 3-4. Phase 5 SAS Nagar (Mohali).
2. Kalyan Jewellers India Pvt. Ltd. , TC 32/204/2, Sitaram Mill Road, Punkunnam , Thrissur-680002

                                                                 .............Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986(Old)

 

Quorum

Sh.Pushvinder  Singh, President

Sh. Manjeet Singh, Bhinder, Member

Ms.Shivani  Bhargava, Member

   

Present: Sh.Devinder Singh , Advocate, counsel  for Complainant  (through VC).

                   Sh.Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, counsel for OPs( Through VC).

         

 

ORDER

By Pushvinder  Singh, President

                      The present complaint has been filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as “OP” for short) Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986(Old).

 2.                   In this complaint, Shashi Lata Ahuja, Complainant stated that the OPs launched  “ Purchase Advance Sheme” (hereinafter referred to  as the Scheme) for its customers. As per  the scheme, the  customer was required to pay  OPs a sum of Rs.5000/-  every month for  11 months and after maturity , the OPs promised to deliver the gold articles as per the  requirements of the customer.  The complainant became  member of said scheme on 21.3.2015 and paid all installments within time . She  wanted to gift two Gold  bangles to her daughter-in-law living in Canada  and she (daughter-in-law)  informed her size of Gold Bangles as 2.4. Accordingly , the complainant  placed an  order with the OPs  for delivery of two Gold  bangles of size 2.4. The OPs promised to deliver the same on  21.2.2016. But the  bangles were delivered by the OPs on 22.5.2016 with a delay of approximately 3 months. Causing of delay of three months , the complainant  was not able to gift the Gold bangles to her Daughter-in-law at the proper date. On 20.6.2017, the complainant visited  Canada and she took the above bangles along with her  and gifted to her daughter-in Law. However , the said  gold bangles, being of oversize, were not suitable  for her  daughter-in-law and  hence she returned the same.  Then the complainant went to a jeweler in Canada on 6.7.2017, who  informed  her that the bangles were  of size 2.7 instead of 2.4. The complainant returned India on 9.12.2017 and requested the   OPs   to replace the gold bangles with the size she had ordered. The OPs  ignored the  genuine request of the complainant  and  On 8.1.2018 OPs demanded additional charges for replacement.    Hence, the complainant filed this complaint for giving directions to the OP to  replace the oversized Gold Bangles with desired size as was ordered i.e 2.4 without any additional making charges and also sought Rs.80,000/- as compensation for damages along with interest @ 18% from the date of  filing the complaint  and  Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges along with interest .

  3.                   Notice of complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed its written reply/version,  and stated that the complaint  is   barred by limitation. The complainant has not filed any application for  the condonation of delay. As such the complaint  filed by the complainant deserved dismissal. The OPs  have not denied the facts regarding the scheme for the customers of 11 month as alleged by the complainant. The Ops also admitted that the complainant became member  of said scheme and  paid  the 11 installments within time.  The OPs  have denied that the OPs delayed the delivery of the gold bangles and also  denied all other allegations  and has alleged that  the complainant herself choose to buy two gold bangles of 2.7 size and prayed  for dismissal  of complaint.

 4.                        The Complainant in support of her complaint tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and  also produced copy of  purchase advance  customer ledger  Ex.C1, copy of pass port Ex.C2, Photograph  Ex.C3copy of invoice  Ex.C4,  copy of legal notice  dated 2.2.2018 Ex.C5, copy of postal receipts Ex.C6, copy of reply to legal notice  Ex.C7,    photo copy of bangles along with verification bill of  size of bangles of  Ek Jot Jewelers Ex.C8. On the other hand  OPs did not lead any evidence but along  with version OPs filed affidavit and  documents as  Annexure D1 to AnnexureD3.

5.                  We have heard learned counsel for the parties  and have also gone through the record.

6.                Admittedly,  the OPs launched  a scheme and as per said scheme the complainant became member of said  scheme. As per said scheme, the  members were required to pay  OPs a sum of Rs.5000/-  every month for  11 months and after maturity , the OPs promised to deliver the gold articles as per the  requirements of the members.  It is also admitted  fact that the complainant  paid all installments within time and thereafter  wanted to purchase two Gold  bangles of the size of 2.4  as the complainant wanted  to gift to her daughter-in-law living in Canada. The OPs delivered the two gold bangles  on 22.5.2016. The complainant alleged that  the OPs delivered the bangles with a delay of  3months.  On 20.6.2017, the complainant went to   Canada and took the above bangles along with her  and gifted to her daughter-in Law. But the said  gold bangles were  oversize, were not suitable  for her  daughter-in-law. As such she  returned the same.  Then the complainant went to a jeweler in Canada and come to know that the bangles were  of size 2.7 instead of 2.4. The OPs alleged that the complainant herself choose to buy the two gold bangles  of 2.7 size.  The complainant has proved copy of purchase advance customer  ledger of OPs as Ex.C1 and in the said ledger it is clearly mentioned that the total 11  installments  Rs.5000/- each installment paid by the complainant  and details  of product  also mentioned in the purchase advance customer ledger and size of two gold bangles agreed to be purchased by the complainant is mentioned as 2.4. As such,Ex.C1 clearly shows that  the size of  bangles ,which was agreed to be purchased by the complainant was 2.4 not 2.7 as alleged by the OPs . The bangles  which were delivered to the complainant was  of 2.7 size, which is proved  from the receipt of  Ak Jot Jewelers as  Ex.C8 even there is no denial  by the OPs of size of the Gold bangles  delivered to the complainant . So we have found that  its established  on the file that the complainant was willing to purchase  the Gold bangles and even  made order to purchase  the  gold bangles of 2.4 size but  the gold bangles of the size 2.7 were delivered to the complainant  by the OPs. 

7.                              Ld. counsel for the OPs forcibly contended that the complaint is Bar by limitation  as Section 24 A of the old Act 1986 provides 2 years limitation to file the complaint as per section 69 of the New  CPA 2019  also provides 2 years limitation to file the complaint.  Ld. counsel for the OPs also contended that complainant did not file any application  for condonation of delay.  So the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation. On the other hand Ld. counsel for the complainant  contended that  the complainant was filed within the period of limitation as the cause of action arose to the  complainant  on 22.6.2017 when she reached Canada and gave the gold bangles to her Daughter-in-law and thereafter legal notice was  issued to the Ops and they denied the claim of the complainant.  As such the  complainant filed this complaint within  a period for 2 years. 

8.                     After giving thoughtful consideration  to arrival contention and as per Section 24 A of CPA 1986 (Old) and as per Section 69 of CPA 2019(New) , it has been provided that the District Consumer Commission, State Commission and National Commission  shall not  admit the complaint  unless it is filed within  two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.  In the act the provision  for condonation  of delay is also given but the complainant has not  sought any  condonation of delay as the complainant filed  the present complaint within 2 years from the date when  the cause of action arose . The complainant has provided the copy of her Passport, which shows that she went to Canada on 20.6.2017 and returned back on 9.12.2017. The complainant has alleged that she gave the two gold Bangles to her Daughter-in-law after reaching Canada on 22.6.2017 and when her Daughter-in-law  wore the gold bangles then she came to know that  gold bangles  were over sized and thereafter she went to  Jewellers from where she came to know that  gold bangles were of the size  of 2.7. instead of 2.4.  We agreed with the complainant that the cause of action arose to file the complainant on 22.6.2017 when she came to know  the size of gold banbgles . The present complaint was filed by the complainant on 14.9.2018, which was filed within limitation of 2 years. Accordingly in all these circumstances we have come  to the conclusion that the OPs should replace the two gold bangles  and after taking back of 2.7 size gold Bangles and they should  deliver  the gold bangles of 2.4 size. The complainant has filed the present complaint when  the OPs refused to replace the  gold bangles. So she was  compelled to file  this complaint and accordingly  she is entitled to  the compensation for the mental and physical harassment and she is also entitled  litigation expenses.

 

9.               In view of our aforementioned discussion the present complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to replace two gold bangles  of complainant of 2.7 size with 2.4 size gold bangles of similar weight and quality without any  extra charges. The OPs are also directed to  pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant, compliance  of  this order be made within a period of 45 days failing which the complainant shall be entitled to get the order implemented through legal process. The complaint could not be decided within a specific period as provided by the statute due to rush of work and large pendency. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant and the OPs as per rules. The file be returned back to the District Consumer Commission, Mohali for consignment.

Announced: 05.09.2022

                                                           

                                                                               (Pushvinder Singh)

                                                                              President

 

(Shivani Bhargava)

                                                                              Member

                                                                            

(Manjit Singh Bhinder)

                                                                              Member