SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER
The Complainant has filed this complaint under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction against the OP to get Rs.13,000/- which was extracted by the OP towards the price of the gold and Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.12,000/- as litigation cost.
The complainant in brief
On 15/3/2021 complainant entrusted her 20 gm Karimani mala golden chain to make another chain by giving Rs.500/- as advance. The said chain has a pendent and hook . On 22/3/2021 complainant gave Rs.25,000/- to OP for additional 6 gm gold to new chain. At that time OP shown a readymade golden chain but no bill was issued to complainant. The OP demanded further Rs.1797/- after the completion of work and given a bill to complainant. The complainant paid Rs.1200/- and collected her gold chain. The complainant is alleging that OP collected excessive amount from her and hence the complaint.
After filing the complaint, commission send notice to OP and OP entered appearance before the commission and filed his version accordingly.
Version of OP in brief:
The OP denied all facts except those specified admitted. The OP admitted that complainant entrusted double chained gold chain to replace black beads and to add gold instead of black beads. At the time of entrustment, the gold chain weight 19.00 gm and after removal of dirt its weight 18.900 gm and this was convinced to complainant. But complainant claimed that the initial weight of gold chain was 20gms when she purchased long back from some other seller. Moreover, carat of gold chain was not 916 and hence according to the purity of 19.5 ct gold, the price fixed as Rs.16790/- and the bill was issued for the same. The entrusted chain was double layered and it is impossible to make a gold chain as per the demand of complainant was intimated to complainant and she told to continue work and a single chain made by OP. At the time of delivery, everything was explained to complainant and she was convinced with the bill provided by OP. The bill is only a paper in which details of work is hand written and not a printed bill. The OP contended that he is a gold smith by profession for last 40 years and he never acted dishonestly towards any of the customer. Furthermore, OP contended that he convinced complainant about the initial weight of the chain during the entrustment and the difference in the present weight can be assessed by complainant measuring the chain. It is contended by OP that complainant left a balance of Rs.597/- to OP towards the making charge of gold chain and there is no truth in the complaint and it is liable to be dismissed.
Due to the rival contentions raised by the OP to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues accordingly.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of OP?
- Relief and cost?
In order to answer the issues, the commission called for the evidence from complainant as well as OP. The complainant produced documents which is marked as Exts.A1 & A2. Ext.A1 is the paper slip dtd.15/3/2021 issued by OP and Ext.A2 is the paper slip dtd.24/3/2021 issued by OP. The complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as PW1. OP adduced evidence and examined as DW1. Both sides filed argument note before the commission.
Let us have a clear glance into the documents and evidences filed before the commission to answer the issues.
Issue No.1
In order to answer the issue No.1, the commission perused the documents produced by complainant. No documents produced by OP. As per Ext.A1, which is a piece of paper issued by OP, it is seen that Karimanimala weight 18.900 gm and it is agreed to make a gold chain with additional 6.00 gm gold. In the complaint, complainant stated that at the time of entrustment of her Karimanimala to OP, gold chain weighted 20gm. But no evidence produced by complainant showing that the gold chain was of 20 gm. According to Ext.A2, the initial weight along with pendent shown as 23.490 gm and excluding pendent weight is stated as 18.900gm. The OP stated in the version that gold weighted 19.00gm and after removing dirt it weighted only 18.900gm. It is seen from Ext.A2 that OP had added 9.090gm to the new chain. Moreover, OP stated that the gold rate per sovereign was Rs.33680/-. The Ext.A2 indicates that OP had subtracted 4.500gm from complainant’s chain. The OP contended that the gold chain produced by complainant is of only 19.5gm and it is difficult to make single layered chain of less carat and therefore he subtracted 4.500gm and added 9.090 gm to make the chain . According to Ext.A2 the price of added gold is show as Rs.38087/- and it is seen that Rs.16790/- reduced for 4.500 gm and thereby OP charged Rs.27297/- including making charge. According to complainant she stated that she had given Rs.26700/- and obtained the chain. In the complaint, complainant herself admitted that at present the chain weighted 23.490 gm and as per Ext.A2 the weight shown as 23.490gm. Hence it is assumed by commission that there is no weight difference in the gold chain after entrustment by complainant. Moreover, the OP produced purity test report but it was not marked and the complainant made an averment that she got the original purity test report but it was lost. Hence there is no other evidence to prove the purity of gold which complainant assigned. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that only 3.500 gm gold was added to the gold chain and OP obtained excessive amount. The complainant had the opportunity to produce document with regard to show the weight and purity of gold which she entrusted to OP. During the cross examination complainant stated that her gold chain was an old one. Hence the commission is in the view that there may be wear and tear by using gold for long period and complainant not produced any evidence to show that the initial weight and final weight of her gold chain. Hence the Commission came into a conclusion that there is no merit in the case and issue No.1 is answered against complainant and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Issue No.2:
Since there is no deficiency in service from the part of OP and there is no direct evidence to prove the financial loss or hardship suffered by complainant and hence complainant is not entitled to get compensation.
In the result complaint dismissed no order as to cost.
Exts:
A1&A2- Paper slip bill dtd.15/3/2021& 24/3/2021
PW1-K.Gouri- complainant
DW1-C-Madhusoodhanan- OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
