DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:484 of 2011] Date of Institution :21.10.2011 Date of Decision :03.01.2012 ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ranjit Powar, Controller Legal Metrology, Punjab; R/o House No.1682 (First Floor), Sector 33-D, Chandigarh; Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Punjab, Jeevan Deep Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. (VERSUS) M/s. Nikka Mal Babu Ram Jewellers, SCF No.26, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh 160002 (Ph:0172-271290, 2704099). ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: None for the complainant. Opposite Party already exparte. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Dr. Ranjit Powar has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed:- i) To accept the Gold Kartas and refund Rs.2,80,000/- being the prevailing market price; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) To pay the costs of litigation; iv) Award any other relief, which this Forum deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 24.09.2008, he purchased a pair of Polka Gold Karas weighting 97 grams from the opposite party for a consideration of Rs.1,15,000/- with an assurance of refund of the amount in case of any defect in the Karas. According to the complainant, soon after the purchase, the diamonds affixed on the Karas started chipping off. So on 20.12.2010, he approached the opposite party for returning the said Gold Karas and sought refund. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party offered a consolidated amount of Rs.79,250/- only despite the fact that the price of gold and diamond had escalated many times. It is alleged that the market price of 97 gm gold on that day was Rs.2,71,600/-. Thus, according to the complainant, the opposite party sold him defective jewellery and refused to refund its prevailing market value. It amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. Notice was given to the opposite party, who was duly served through Process Server. But the opposite party refused to accept the summons. As refusal was a good service, therefore, opposite party was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.12.2011. Even none appeared on behalf of the complainant on the date of final hearing i.e.02.01.2011 and the case was reserved for orders. 4. We have gone through the entire complaint including the affidavit of the complainant and the documents placed on record by him. 5. The averments made in the complaint, as reproduced above, stand corroborated from the affidavit of the complainant as well as from documents annexed with the complaint. From the copy of Bill/Valuation Certificate placed on record by the complainant at Page 5 of the paper book, it is proved that the complainant purchased Gold Polka Karas weighting 97 grams from the opposite party and on 24.09.2008 for a consideration of Rs.1,15,000/-. Therefore, in the light of this Valuation Certificate, the opposite party cannot now offer less value of the product when the price of gold has escalated many times from the date of its purchase i.e. 24.09.2008. Therefore, the opposite party is liable to refund the cost of the said Gold Polka Karas weighting 97 grams at the present prevailing rate. 6. So far as the diamonds are concerned, there is nothing on record to establish the value of the diamonds affixed on the said Gold Karas. Therefore, in the absence of any such evidence, we are unable to award any relief on this count to the complainant. 7. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed as under: - (i) to take back the Gold Polka Karas weighting 97 grams from the complainant and refund him the prevailing cost of these Gold Karas as on today i.e.03.01.2012. (ii) to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation to the complainant for suffering mental agony and harassment due to deficiency in service. (iii) to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 8. This order be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to pay the decreetal amount (price of Karas + Rs.3,000 as compensation) along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.21.10.2011 till actual payment besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 9. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 3rd January 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.484 of 2011 Present: None. --- As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. [MADHU MUTNEJA] [LAKSHMAN SHARMA] [J. S. SIDHU] 03.01.2012 (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
