Punjab

Sangrur

CC/82/2017

Lakhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dev Raj Parshotam Dass - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ajay Pal Singh

19 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 82                                                                                          

                                                                    Instituted on:  06.03.2017

                                                                   Decided on:    19.06.2017

 

Lakhwinder Singh son of Joginder Singh resident of Village  Kaheru, Tehsil Dhuri,  District Sangrur.  

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

 

M/s Dev Raj Parshotam Dass Sadar Bazar Dhuri Tehsil Dhuri District Sangrur through its proprietor/ partner.

 

        ….Opposite party.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:        Shri Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY     :                Shri J.S.Sahni,  Advocate         

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

     

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Lakhwinder Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased  gold ornaments weighing to 63.300 gms of 22 carat from OP and the rate was settled between the complainant and OP @ Rs.24200/- ( for 10grams).  On 26.11.2015 complainant was called and OP handed over all the ornaments. The complainant demanded bill but OP put of the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter on 26.12.2015 the complainant visited the OP and OP issued bill no.2414 dated 26.12.2015 for Rs.1,81,852/- in which the OP charged Rs.25600/-  ( for 22 carat gold) instead of Rs.24200/-. The complainant number of times requested the OP to refund the excess amount of Rs.13862/-  i.e. Rs.1400/- X  63.600 grams+ Rs.8862/-  + Rs.5000/- on account of excess labour charges but OP flatly refused to do so.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to refund  the excess amount of Rs.13862/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of bill till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.8500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, cause of action and locus standi have been taken up. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant approached the OP  for purchase of ornaments, on that day the rate of gold is Rs.2560/- per gram ( Rs.25600/- per tola) and the OP disclosed the rate of gold to the complainant. The complainant never approached the OP on 26.11.2015. The OP never refused to issue bill to the complainant. It is denied that the complainant  purchased gold ornaments  weighing  to 63.600 grams, whereas the complainant purchased  gold ornaments weighing to 63.300 grams from the OP. Thereafter the complainant made the entire bill amount to the OP without any protest. It is denied that complainant told the OP that rate was settled @Rs.24200/-. Moreover, the labour charges are as per the design of the ornaments.    

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP has tendered documents OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 and  closed evidence.   

4.             It is an admitted case of the OP that the complainant purchased gold ornaments total weighing   63.300 grams from the OP. The main dispute in this case is that the OP charged excess rate of gold ornaments and labour charges as so settled between the complainant and the OP.

5.             It has been alleged by the complainant that the rate was settled between the complainant and OP @24200/- (for 10 grams for 22 carat gold) and on 26.11.2015  he approached the OP  then OP handed over all the gold ornaments  but bill was not issued by the OP despite the demand of complainant.  It has been further stated that the bill was issued on 26.12.2015 wherein the OP charged  Rs.25600/-  for 22 carat gold instead of Rs.24200/-. On other hand, the OP has specifically stated in the reply that  when the complainant approached the OP for purchase of gold ornaments on that day the rate of the gold was Rs.2560/- per gram ( Rs.25600/- per tola). It has been further stated by the OP that the labour charges are charged as per design of the ornaments.

6.             We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record .  We find that it is difficult to ascertain on which date the settlement of the rate of gold ornaments  was done  as neither the complainant nor the OP has mentioned the date of settlement of rate of ornaments. From the perusal of the invitation card of marriage Ex.C-14 we find that marriage of son of the complainant was to be held on 04.12.2015, so it is matter of common knowledge that the ornaments were required to be prepared before 04.12.2015. It is the case of the complainant that on 26.11.2015 after making the ornaments, OP handed over the gold ornaments to him. So, we feel that prevailing rate of gold on 26.11.2015 was to be charged on the gold ornaments. As per rate list of 22KGold price in Punjab produced  by the OP Ex.OP-6 the rate of gold on 26.11.2015 was Rs.2450/- per gram and as such Rs.24500/- for ten grams. But the OP charged Rs.25600/- for  ten grams as per retail invoice Ex.C-2. As such OP charged excess Rs.1100/- against ten grams and total excess charged Rs.6963/-. The complainant has not proved on record as to how the OP charged excess Rs.5000/- against the labour charges as  it is specific case of the OP that labour charges are charged as per the design of the ornaments.

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.6963/- as excess charged by the OP. We further direct the OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- a consolidated amount of compensation on account of mental pain agony and harassment.

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                June 19, 2017

 

 

 

( Vinod Kumar Gulati )  ( Sarita Garg)       (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                     Member                    Member                            President