BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.210/2009 AGAINST C.C.No.549/2008 DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD.
Between:
Mr.Major (Ex.) J.S.Kalsi
Resident No.196,
AWHO Colony, Sector-A,
Secunderabad-500 009. Appellant/
Complainant
And
1. Titan Industries Limited Tanishq
6-3-883/2A, Punjagutta,
Hyderabad-500 082.
Represented by its Managing Director.
2. Titan Industries Limited, Tanishq
6-3-883/2A, Punjagutta,
Hyderabad-500 082.
3. Titan Industries Limited, Tanishq,
6-3-883/2A, Punjagutta,
Hyderabad-500 082
Represented by its Authorized Signatory. Respondents/
Opp.parties
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.L.Adi Babu
Counsel for the Respondents:
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO MEMBER
.
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Orders (Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member)
***
1. The complainant is the appellant. He has filed the complaint with the averments that he had purchased 100.10 grams of gold biscuit for Rs.1,32,652/-on 20-02-2008 from the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has issued invoice by stating therein that they had sold coins. The respondent no.1 had not sold the gold in accordance with the prescribed price and on 20-02-2008 the daily paper, Andhra Jyothi published the price of the gold as Rs.11, 800/- per 100 grams. The appellant had sent email on 1-03-2008 and 15-03-2008 questioning it as to why it had collected making charges and charged him the prevailing rates on 20-02-2008 though he had paid the entire amount on 15-02-2008 and that he was not aware of the own corporate rates of the respondents as the respondents had not displayed any notice thereof. The respondents gave reply on 14-03-2008 and 19-03-2008 that they strive to take care of all their customers. The appellant got issued notice through his advocate on 16-04-2008 for which the respondents had in the first instance gave reply dated 9-05-2008 seeking time for one month to into the matter and subsequently on 28-05-2008 that the appellant’s claim was false and frivolous.
2. The respondents resisted the claim by filing written version contending that M/s Titan Industries limited is one of the premier corporate institution engaged in the business of manufacture, and sale of gold, silver, diamond and allied jewellery. In the invoice issued to the appellant the biscuit was mentioned as coins as it was programmed to suit convenience at the time of issuing the computer generated bill. The rates charged by the respondent no.1 was determined by its company The making and wastage charges of the gold biscuit is inevitable as the process of moulding gold biscuits with 24 karat gold is the same as that of the making of any other gold article. The rate of wastage and making charges varies according to the nature of the product. In the case of the ornaments, the wastage is charged according to the design and work involved. The appellant is aware of these facts since he purchased a gold chain, ear ring and pendant set on 8-01-2007 where he was charged 12% as wastage charges. A scroll message is displayed stating the rate of the gold at the respondent no.1 shop. At the time sale of the gold biscuit, the Sales Executive explained the appellant of the gold weight charges Rs.1,28.411.77, making charges Rs.1158.78, wastage charges Rs.1767.5, basic price—Rs.1,31,338.05 and taxes-Rrs.1313/- and the final price is Rs.1,32,652/-. After having satisfied with the total price of the gold with break up details provided to him by the respondent no.1, the appellant had purchased the gold item. The respondent had given reply to the notice of the appellant.
3. The appellant has filed his affidavit and the documents,ExA1 to A15. The respondents have not filed any affidavits or documents.
4. The District Forum after considering the evidence on record opined that there was no evidence produced by the complainant to prove that there was deficiency in service and dismissed the complaint.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the bullion rates are different from place to place and that the respondents had not followed the bullion rates of the gold.
6. The points for consideration are:
1. Whether the respondents can charge the rates as determined by
M/s Titan Company Ltd?
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the amount of Rs.13,460.09?
3. To what relief?
7. POINTS NO1 & 2: The appellant purchased 1000.010 grams of gold on 20-02-2008 from the respondent no.1 for a consideration of Rs.1, 32,652.00. The invoice dated 20-02-2008 shows that the respondent no.1 sold the variant no.600212ZHARSW00 of 24 karat coins to the appellant. The appellant has disputed the sale of coins mentioned in the invoice stating that it is the gold in the shape of biscuit that he had purchased from the respondent no.1 but not the coins. The respondents have submitted that it was programmed in the system for the sake of convenience of billing as coins instead of biscuit. Any importance cannot be given to this aspect as there is no dispute between the parties as to the quantity and quality of the gold purchased by the appellant. It is not the case of the appellant that the quantity of gold if sold in the shape of coins weighs more compared to the same quantity of gold in the form of biscuit. The appellant has not shown any variation in the quantity of gold between the two forms of the gold. This aspect is to be considered in the back drop of the statement of the respondents which remained unrebutted that making charges for the biscuit and coins is the same. The contention of the appellant that the respondent no.1 had stated in the invoice the gold sold to the appellant as coins instead of biscuit pales in to insignificance in the absence of any complaint thereof from the appellant.
8. The respondents by their reply dated 14-03-2008 clarified that the price of the gold is determined by M/s Tanishq company. The appellant has contended that the respondent had charged an amount of Rs 13,460/- which is the difference of the amount of price of the gold published in Andhra Jyothi daily dated 15-2-2008 on the amount of Rs. 1,32,652/-. There is no force in the contention of the appellant that the bullion market price published in the daily papers is binding on the respondents. In their reply dated 14-3-2008, 19-3-2008 and 28-05-2008, the respondents had categorically stated that they are bound by the pricing of gold products fixed by their company and not the price fixed by the associations in Hyderabad and Mumbai. However, we find the respondent’s contention that they have charged the price of the gold biscuit as determined by their company not established in absence of filing any document by them. The respondents had collected an amount of Rs,1,32,652.00 though the appellant booked the same on 15-2-2008 and sold the gold biscuits on the price prevailing on 20-2-2008 and the respondent failed to show that the price of the 24 carat gold weighing 100.10gms was Rs.1,32,652/- as determined by their company either on 15-2-2008 or on 20-2-2008. On this count, we find negligence on the part of the respondents for which we are inclined to award a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently the complaint is allowed in part. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the appellant/complainant and Rs.1,000/- towards costs within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER.
MEMBER.
Dt.29.12.2010
KMK*
