Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/99/2022

S. Sridhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kerala Fashion Jewellary, Rep by its Authorized Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. P. Rajdurai

18 May 2023

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 25.02.2022                                                    

Date of Reservation      : 28.04.2023

                                                                          Date of Order               : 18.05.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                       : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,       :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,: MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.99/2022

THURSDAY, THE 18^th DAY OF MAY 2023

M. S. Sridhar,

S/o. Late. T.N. Srinivasan,

Flat No,S3, Jeyanthi Flats,

SLR Homes, Emerald Street,

SRVS Colony,

Kilkattalai,

Chennai  600 117.                                                     …Complainant.

..Vs..

1.Kerala Fashion Jewellery-KFJ,

   Represented by its authorized Signatory,

   180, Purasaiwakkam High Road, (Opp. Bharat Petrol Bunk),

   Near Abirami Mall, Purasaiwakkam,

   Chennai 600 010.

 

2.Kerala Fashion Jewellery-KFJ,

   Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

   113, Kutchery Road, Luz Corner,

   Mylapore,

   Chennai  600 004.                                           .. Opposite Parties.

                                               

                                            * * * * *

Counsel for the Complainant   :   M/s. P.Rajdurai, S. Sumathi,

                                                      K. Sai Sharavan Kumar

Counsel for Opposite Parties   :   Exparte on 05.09.2022

 

On perusal of records and having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant, this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

 

(i)  The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.52,392/- to the Complainant towards the balance money for the selling of jewels (unsettled money) and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the Complainant along with cost of Rs.25,000/-.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The Complainant submitted that he is a retired bank employee and engaged as an Academic Counsellor for Indira Gandhi National Open University and presently serving as a guest faculty in Anna University, Chennai. He is also working as a visiting professor in various Education institutions around India on invitation and requests from the respective colleges and universities. He has dedicated his remaining life to the welfare of students in order to educate them and to push them further in their studies and career.

2.     He is a regular customer of the Opposite Party's chain of jewelleries shop, during one of his visits to the 1^st Opposite Party shop for buying jewellery, their staffs had introduced him to one of their scheme called "Bond of Gold" and explained that the said scheme would allow him to buy gold at the mature date on earlier price i.e., Market price of gold bond purchase date. He had innocently decided to purchase one from them since he found that gold price will be lesser than the market price thereby reap good benefits from them. Trusting the 1^st Opposite Party, he had bought 200 grams Bond on 19.09.2013 at the price of Rs.3,99,800/- excluding VAT. He had further bought another 50 grams of gold bond on 18.02.2014 at the price of Rs.1,11,100/- excluding VAT from the 2^nd Opposite Party.

3.     The above said bonds matured on 18.09.2016 and 18.02.2017, respectively. When he visited the 2^nd Opposite Party to buy jewellery, it was informed to him that the previous subscribed bonds could be extended upto 1 year without any additional payment. Trusting their assurance and their brand value, accordingly he had extended both the bonds to one year.

4.     After the maturity date of both the bonds, he had purchased jewels from the 2^nd Opposite Party. As per the terms and conditions of Opposite Party, if he is interested to return back the purchased jewels and only 5% will be deducted from the market price on the returned jewels.

5.     Due to his unexpected financial difficulties of the Complainant, he had decided to sell the above said jewelleries and returned back the purchased jewels for sale to the Opposite Party on 04.07.2019 and the same was received by the 2^nd Opposite Party happily, but had not paid him the money on that day. Hence he had asked the Opposite Party to return back his jewels or else to pay the money for the said jewels. But to his shock and surprise, the 2^nd Opposite Party neither returned his jewels or was not even ready to pay money for the said jewels, inspite of having strongly pressed for either one of it. The Opposite Party mercilessly humiliated and asked him to leave the shop. On that day, with a broken heart he left the place without getting any confirmation receipt for his jewels or money. The 2^nd Opposite Party did not even considered his age and his dignified profile in the society.

6.     On later date, after a much verbal fight, the Opposite Party had only assured to payback money for his jewels but was not ready to return the jewels. Having suspected the acts of the 2^nd Opposite Party, he had strictly asked the Opposite Party to return his jewels. But the Opposite Party was not ready to return his precious jewels, left with no other option and also to save his hard-earned money, he had agreed to the conditions of the 2^nd Opposite Party to receive money for his jewels. Inspite of the same, the Opposite Party had not settled the sum of Rs.7,77,392.42p payable to him in lump sum but on piece meal basis to a total of Rs.7,25,000/- only, over a period of 2 months from 04.07.2019, which caused him loss of time, energy and mental agony.

7.     As per the terms and conditions mentioned in the bill the Opposite Party had assured to pay cash refund at the market purchase rate prevailing on that day, making charges/value additions will not be refunded. If the jewels are returned after 7 days it will be treated as used and old ornaments and the value will be paid at current market rate less 5% for the Gold Content. The 2nd Opposite Party continuously humiliated and mentally harassed him during those period of 2 months, which has put him to untold suffering, being a person with dignified profile and for no fault of him.

8.     The Opposite Party instead of deducting 5% as per the terms and conditions, had deducted in an exorbitant manner to a tune of 13.55%, when the same was asked, the Opposite Party had replied improperly and not even ready to give him reasons as a seller. Hence the Opposite Party was found guilty of fraud and deceived and cheated him, which is completely illegal and will attract several criminal sections of both Cr.P.C and IPC. The Opposite Parties have attained illicit benefit from his hard earned money, of which he had suffered a lot at that time and had faced lot of financial difficulties in his family.

9.     The Opposite Parties behaviour would not only amount to unfair trade practice but also gross deficiency in rendering service towards the bona fide customer. He had suffered mental agony and loss of time, money and energy in this regard and the Opposite Parties are strictly and monetarily liable to pay him. Hence this complaint.

II.  The Opposite Party set ex parte:

 Notice was sent to the Opposite Party and was duly served. Despite the notice being served to the Opposite Party failed to appear before this Commission either in person or by an Advocate on the hearing date i.e. 05.09.2022. On that day, the Opposite Party was called absent and set ex-parte. Subsequently, the case was proceeded to be heard on merits.

III.   The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit and Written Arguments, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A8.

IV.  Points for Consideration:-

 

1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

 

2.Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

 

3. To what other relief,  the Complainant is entitled to?

 

Point No.1 :

10.    The Contentions of the Complainant are that he had availed a scheme called "Bond of Gold" at the insistence of the 1^st Opposite Party, assuring that the said scheme would allow him to buy gold at the mature date on earlier price i.e., Market price of gold bond purchase date. As he found that the gold price would be lesser than the market price and thereby could reap good benefits from them. Trusting the 1^st Opposite Party, he had bought 200 grams Bond on 19.09.2013 at the price of Rs.3,99,800/- excluding VAT and had further bought another 50 grams of gold bond on 18.02.2014 at the price of Rs.1,11,100/- excluding VAT from the 2^nd Opposite Party and the said bonds were matured on 18.09.2016 and 18.02.2017, respectively. It was informed to him that the previous subscribed bonds could be extended upto 1 year without any additional payment and trusting their assurance and their brand value, both the said bonds were extended for one year. Thereafter, after the maturity date of both the bonds, he had purchased jewels from the 2^nd Opposite Party. As per the terms and conditions of Opposite Party, if he is interested in returning back the purchased jewels only 5% will be deducted from the market price on the returned jewels. Due to his financial difficulties he was intended to sell his jewels and on 04.07.2019 he had handed over his jewels to the 2^nd Opposite Party, but he was not paid for the said jewels on the same day, when he had asked for return of jewels the Opposite Parties had refused to do so and he was humiliated and left the shop without obtaining the jewels or money. After a long battle the Opposite Parties had failed to return his jewels but had agreed to pay for his jewels, as no other go he had to accept the condition of the 2^nd Opposite Party in receiving money. Inspite of the same, the Opposite Party had not settled the sum of Rs.7,77,392.42p payable to him in lump sum but on piece meal basis to a total of Rs.7,25,000/- only, over a period of 2 months from 04.07.2019, which caused him loss of time, energy and mental agony. It was mentioned in the Bill that to pay cash refund at the market purchase rate prevailing on that day, making charges/value additions will not be refunded. If the jewels are returned after 7 days it will be treated as used and old ornaments and the value will be paid at current market rate less 5% for the Gold Content. But instead of deducting 5% as per the terms and conditions, had deducted in an exorbitant manner to a tune of 13.55%,when the same was asked, the Opposite Party had replied improperly and not even ready to give him reasons as a seller. The act and behaviour of the Opposite Parties would not only amount to unfair trade practice but also gross deficiency in rendering service towards the bona fide customer and he had suffered mental agony and loss of time, money and energy in this regard and the Opposite Parties are strictly and monetarily liable to pay him.

11.    On perusal of the complaint and the exhibits marked in support of the complaint and the submissions made, it is clear that the Complainant had availed a scheme called "Bond of Gold" and had bought 200 grams Gold Bond bearing No. PUKFJ041373 on 19.09.2013 at Rs.1999/- per gram as per Ex.A-1, amounting to Rs.3,99,800/- from the 1^st Opposite Party for three years and the same would mature on 18.09.2016. The Complainant had bought another 50 grams of Gold bond bearing No.MYKFJ0141067 on 18.02.2014 at Rs.2222/- per gram as per Ex.A-2, amounting to Rs.1,11,100/- from the 2^nd Opposite Party for three years and the same would mature on 18.02.2017. The said bonds were extended for another one year and accordingly Gold Bond bearing No. PUKFJ041373 was extended on 27.09.2016 till 18.09.2017 by the 1^st Opposite Party as per Ex.A-3 and Gold bond bearing No.MYKFJ0141067 was extended on 17.02.2017 for 12 months by the 2^nd Opposite Party as per Ex.A-4. As per Ex.A-5 the Complainant had purchased 100.430 grams of gold under Bill No.254 dated 18.09.2017 and 99.980 grams of Gold under Bill No.255 dated 18.09.2017 from the 1^st Opposite Party. As per Ex.A-6 the Complainant had purchased 50.430 grams of gold under Bill No.2701 dated 18.02.2018 from the 2^nd Opposite Party. The above said Gold ornaments weighing 250.920 grams were sold by the Complainant to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 04.07.2019, under Bill No.6302 dated 04.07.2019 and it is not denied by the Complainant that the Bill was issued on 04.07.2019 and in the said Bill the Making charges and wastages were found to be deducted and 10% on total weight of the Gold ornaments was deducted and a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- has been agreed to be paid by the 2^nd Opposite Party and the same was accepted by the Complainant whose signature with date was found, as per Ex.A-7.

12.    The Contentions of the Complainant based on Ex.A-7 is that the 2^nd Opposite Party had deducted 13.55% on the total weight of the Gold ornaments instead of agreed 5% deduction and had not paid cash on the same day when the gold ornaments were handed over for sale. On later date, after a much verbal fight, the Opposite Party had only assured to payback money for his jewels but was not ready to return the jewels, and the Opposite Party was not ready to return his precious jewels, left with no other option and also to save his hard-earned money, he had agreed to the conditions of the 2^nd Opposite Party to receive money for his jewels. Further the Opposite Party had not settled a sum of Rs.7,77,392.42p payable to him in lump sum but on piece meal basis to a total of Rs.7,25,000/- only, over a period of 2 months from 04.07.2019. Further for the jewels which were returned after 7 days of purchase has to be treated as used and old ornaments and the value will be paid at current market rate less 5% for the Gold Content.

13.    It is to be noted that the above said gold ornaments were sold after a period of nearly about 2 years from the date of purchase of about 200 gms as well as nearly about 1 ½ years from the date of purchase of about 50 gms. Further the Complainant having signed and accepted Ex.A-7 would confirm the arrangement that has taken place between the Complainant and the 2^nd Opposite Party on return of his gold ornaments. And further in Ex.A-7 the mode of payment has been written in hand as RTGS. It is to be noted that the Complainant had not produced any authenticated material evidence to substantiate his claim that he had not agreed for the deductions made and the Payment agreed to be made as well as the mode of payment as per Ex.A-7, hence the claim made in the complaint and the contentions with regard to demand of further amount in violation of deductible percentage on the total weight of the Gold Ornaments and the agreed amounts been paid in piece meal and sustained mental agony, are not proved and the same are not legally sustainable. As the Opposite Parties had paid the agreed sum of Rs.7,25,000/- to the Complainant as per Ex.A-7, there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Therefore this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties had not committed unfair trade practice and/or deficiency of service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos. 2 and 3 :-

14.    As discussed and decided in Point No.1 in favour of the Opposite Parties, that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and also not entitled for any other relief/s.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 18^th day of May 2023.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                        MEMBER I                       PRESIDENT

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	19.09.2013	Receipt copy bond of Gold Investment Plan for 200 grams
Ex.A2	18.02.2014	Receipt copy Bond of Gold Investment Plan for 50 grams
Ex.A3	27.09.2016	Certificate of Extending maturity for one year the Bond of Gold Scheme for 200 grams
Ex.A4	17.02.2017	Certified of extending maturity for one year the Bond of Gold Scheme for 50 grams
Ex.A5	18.09.2017	Bill Nos.254 and 255 for the purchase of Jewels under the Bond of Gold scheme after expiration of Maturity
Ex.A6	18.02.2018	Bill No.2701 for the purchase of jewels under the Bond of Gold Scheme after expiration of Maturity
Ex.A7	04.07.2019	Bill No.6302 for the Old Gold Sale of Gold Jewels
Ex.A8		Bank Statement of Complainant

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

-NIL-

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR               B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                      MEMBER I                    PRESIDENT