In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 332 / 2008 1) Smt. Ratna Chatterjee, FD-146, Salt Lake City, Sector-III, Kolkata-700106. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) M/s Syndicate Jewellers (P) Ltd., 22, Camac Street, Kolkata-700016. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member. Order No. 1 3 Dated 2 7 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 9 . The instant case arises out of a petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. act,1986 made by Smt. Ratna Chatterjee, the complainant against M/s. Syndicate Jewellers (P) Ltd., 22, Camac Street, Block-A, 1st floor, Kolkata-16 with a prayer to (a) impose penalty of Rs.50,000/- only on o.p. as compensation for the suffering, mental agony and harassment undergone by the complainant, (b) refund of Rs.964/- only overcharged by o.p. and (c) buy back the gold jewellery purchased by the complainant in accordance with o.p’s printed terms and conditions as well as the practice of the industry. Specific case of the complainant is that on seeing an advertisement in Ananda Bazar Patrika published on 19.10.06 (annex-1) by the o.p. in respect of a special sales offer, the complainant along with her son Rajarshi had gone to the showroom of the o.p. and purchased gold jewellery worth Rs.34,110/- only (gold content 38.370 gms, invoice no.K/CM 00607/1696 dt.19.10.06 – annex-II). Though in the said advertisement of o.p. it was said that for any item the making charge would be Re.1/- only, the o.p. actually charged Rs.161/- only as making charge and others. However, the other charges are not spelt out (annex-II). On 20.10.07, the complainant visited the showroom of o.p. again with her family and made purchase of gold ornament of Rs.39,200/- only (invoice no.K/CM00708/1872 dt.20.10.07 and order receipt voucher no.K/ORC0708/405 dt.8.9.07, annex-3 & 4). As per the scheme of 2006, the complainant was entitled to Re.1/- for making charge upto the same weight of gold as purchased on the first occasion (i.e.38.370 gms). But the o.p. actually charged Rs.857/-only for 40.830 gms On 20.10.07, the complainant asked the o.p. to buy back the gold ornament purchased on the first occasion. The terms and conditions mentioned overleaf of o.ps. invoices (annex-II & III) did not contain any clause regarding any general or across the board deduction on the ruling price/weight at the time of buy back. But they wanted to apply a deduction of 5% on weight of gold overruling their own terms and conditions and the general business practice in this industry. When the complainant pointed this out, the o.p’s reply was ‘everything cannot be written on the bill”. This was an instance of cheating of the consumer by the shop. The complainant states that in the case of the second purchase she had to visit the shop several times because the o.p. could not maintain the delivery schedule or the shop of o.p. did not inform the correct delivery date although so assured at the time of acceptance of order. Lastly, it was an unique experience for the complainant that each time she visited the shop of the o.p., the dealing sales person gave a different version of their buy back policy. From the petition of complaint it is evident that the whole matter was intimated to the Director, CA & FBP, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata and that the office had arranged for tripartite meetings twice to resolve the issue but no one turned up from o.p’s side. Decision with reasons : On going through the petition of complaint, affidavit of evidence of the complainant and w/o to the petition for joinder of party filed on 9.9.09 by the complainant, it is evident that there is no mentioning of the person who has paid the money for the purchase of gold ornaments and for whom. Accordingly to the oral version of the complainant before the Forum, the ornament in question was purchased by Sri Rajarshi Chatterjee, S/o, Smt. Ratna Chatterjee, the complainant of the instant case for her use. But in the cause title as well as in the contents of the allegations of the instant case, his name was not incorporated resulting in non-joinder of necessary party. According to Order 1 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure though no suit shall be defeated for mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties yet there can be no doubt that if the parties who are not joined are not only proper but also necessary parties to the suit then the infirmity of the suit is bound to be fatal. Advocate on behalf of the o.p. fairly stated that the instant case suffers from proper cause title and proper forms of complaints. In view of the above, the case is dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party, since the Forum can not under a substantive law grant any relief to the parties owing to the present forms of cause title and complaints. However, the complainant is given liberty to lodge a case afresh with proper cause title and forms of complaints u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 within thirty days from the date of communication of this order. Fees paid are correct. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on receipt of prescribed fees. _____Sd-_______ ______Sd-______ MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
