Date of Filing      : 05.04.2023

                                                                                                                                     Date of Disposal : 29.08.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                        .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR., B.Sc., BL.,                                                                           …….MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,  M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L.,                                                       ......MEMBER-II

CC. No.33/2023

THIS TUESDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF AUGUST 2023

Mr.S.Suresh Kumar,  S/o.P.S.Selvaraj,

No.8, Ganapathy Nagar,

Near Vellanur, Via Veltech,  

Chennai 600 055.                                                                                     ……Complainant. 

                                                                               //Vs//

Maha Shakthi Jewellers, (Firm),

Rep. by its Proprietor,

No.17, Nehru Street, Avadi, Chennai 54.                                          …..Opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant                                              :   M/s.N.Kannan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                                          :   M/s.V.Ganesh, Advocate.

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 08.08.2023 in the presence of M/s.N.Kannan, counsel for the complainant and M/s.V.Ganesh, counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

2. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in selling the jewel along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for unfair trade practice along with cost of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

3. It was the case of the complainant that he intended to purchase a gold chain of 916 KDM and visited the opposite party’s Firm on 25.01.2023 for purchasing the ornament by exchanging his old jewel. Newly selected gold chain weighed 11.770 grams as per the tag tied with the chain.  Invoice was raised under bill No.2979 on the same day and the gold chain was priced at Rs.68,039/- and after adding CGST and SGST the new chain price was Rs.70,080/- and the old gold ornament exchanged was valued at Rs.61,580/- and after deducting the old ornament price the difference amount of Rs.8,500/- was paid by the complainant as cash and the new gold chain was delivered to the complainant.  After getting the new chain the complainant wanted to verify the actual weight of the ornament and requested the shop Supervisor to weigh the ornament and the same was weighed in the opposite party firm’s electronic scale.  The complainant was shocked to see the actual weight of the new ornament was only 11.750 grams and when questioned the authorities of the opposite party’s firm tendered apology and also agreed to refund the difference amount and without preparing a new invoice the difference amount was worked out in the same invoice and a sum of Rs.110/- was refunded to the complainant for the excess milligrams charged under the invoice. The complainant was a regular customer with the opposite party. The invoice was carrying a declaration that it shows the actual price of the goods described and that all the particulars mentioned in it are true and correct. In order to curb the illegal acts of the opposite party the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 16.02.2023 and the same was received and replied admitting the difference of weight in the ornament and repayment of the excess amount charged towards the gold chain as per the price tag which clearly shows that the opposite party had committed unfair trade practice.  Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for unfair trade practice along with cost of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-

4. The opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that as per the request of the complainant the opposite party had weighed the chain and there was shortage of only 0.020 milligrams.  On that date (25.01.2023) price of 0.020 milligrams was Rs.106.80/- and the complainant had received an amount of Rs.110/- on the same day.  The opposite party had issued reply notice to the complainant. The opposite party was a genuine person, so that he had narrated all the facts what had happened in the shop. If he was a liar he would have simply avoided and denied the facts and circumstances. The opposite party paid an amount of Rs.106.80/- for the shortage of 0.020 milligrams and it was received by the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

5. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were submitted.  On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and document marked as Ex.B1 submitted.

Points for consideration:

1. Whether the complaint allegations as to Commission of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in the sale of jewel with a shortage in weight as against the mentioned weight has been successfully proved by the complainant?
2. To what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

6. The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

1. Sales Invoice No.2979 dated 25.01.2023 was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Sales Invoice No.624 dated 25.01.2023 was marked as Ex.A2;
3. Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 16.02.2023 was marked as Ex.A3;
4.  Reply notice of the opposite party dated 25.02.2023 marked as Ex.A4;

The following document was filed on the side of opposite party in proof of their defence;

5. Acknowledgement regarding the repaid amount of Rs.110/- was marked as Ex.B1;

7. Heard the oral arguments of both counsels and perused the pleadings and material evidences produced by them.  The contention of the complainant is that he purchased a jewel weighing 11.770 grams but when verified subsequently in the same shop it was less by 0.020 milligrams.  However, the opposite party immediately refunded the cost of 0.020 milligrams to the complainant and sought for an apology.

8. The opposite party’s counsel argued that as immediately they admitted the fault and refunded the excess amount, they could not be held liable for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

9. During arguments the learned counsel for the complainant argued about the GST demanded by the opposite party on the jewel purchased as unfair trade practice.  However, no pleadings was placed before this Commission with respect to the same and hence this Commission could not entertain the same.

10. It is seen that the factum of purchase, less in weight, subsequent refund and apology was not at all disputed by either of the parties. The only grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party practiced unfair trade practice by cheating the public in the matter of selling jewels at a lesser weight than declared in the price tag.

11. On perusal of entire pleadings and materials this commission is of the view that the act of opposite party could not be termed as unfair trade practice or deficiency in service as they have immediately admitted their fault and had acted accordingly.  Only if they had refused to refund the excess cost received from the complainant, it could be termed as deficiency in service.  Further, they also had sought an apology for the same.  As on a single occasion, a jewel purchased by the complainant was less in weight, we could not come to a conclusion that all the jewel sales made by opposite party was of defective sales so as to conclude that they practice unfair trade and deficiency in service.  Hence, we are of the view that the complainant had failed to prove any act of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Based on the single Act no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service was made out by the complainant. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the opposite party and as against the complainant.

Point No.2:-

12. As we have held above that the opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice to the complainant, he is not entitled to any relief in the complaint. Thus we answer the point accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

 Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 29^th day of August 2023.

   Sd/-                                                            Sd/-                                                          Sd/-

 MEMBER-II                                            MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

    Sd/-                                                                 Sd/-                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                MEMBER-I                                       PRESIDENT