BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.

DATED THIS THE 1^st DAY OF JULY 2021

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR :                         JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI  :     MEMBER

                                                                                     COMPLAINT NO. 44/2014

V/s

ORDER

BY MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER

1.      This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency in service to pay Rs.99,50,000/- as compensation as per the challenge made by the Opposite Party.

2.      The averments in the complaint are as hereunder;

It is the case of the complainant that on 14.01.2013 the complainant had purchased gold chain from the Opposite Party vide bill dt.14.01.2013.  The said gold chain was sold by the Opposite Party to the complainant as weighing 39.150 gms with “ kambi” attached to it weighing 1.050 gms with 13.27% and 13.67% as wastage respectively for a sum of Rs.1,30,693/- with VAT at 1% amounting to a sum of Rs.1,306=93 in all amounting to Rs.1,32,000/- under the said bill.  The complainant had paid the respondent the entire amount of the bill in cash.  Under the said transaction, the Opposite Party had issued 26 lucky draw coupons offering the complainant first prize as Maruthi Swift Car, second prize of gold coins 25 numbers and third prize of sarees 199 numbers.

3.      The complainant approached the Opposite Party on 25.12.2013 as the complainant felt fishy about the quality of the gold chain sold by the Opposite Party to her.  The complainant had given the chain to the Opposite Party for testing.  The Opposite Party had tested the chain and removed nine iron/steel balls from the chain from one of the links of the chain.  Not only this, the Opposite Party had marked some other links, in all 14 links, as containing similar iron/steel balls.  The iron/steel balls removed were weighing 0.180 mili gms.  The Opposite Party had admitted that such iron/steel balls are contained in 14 other links also in the said chain.  Having admitted their fault, the Opposite Party offered to pay a sum of Rs.800/- and told the complainant not to precipitate the matter. 

4.      Having come to know about this, the complaint got issued a registered legal notice dt.31.12.2013 to the Opposite Party which has been duly served on the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party has got issued a reply notice in which the Opposite Party has clearly admitted about the deficiency in their service by admitting the existence of the iron/steel balls in the chain which was sold to the complainant.  The Opposite Party has also admitted that they had removed iron/steel balls from one of the links which they have sold to the complainant.  In the said reply the fact of their having identified 14 other links in the said gold chain as having containing similar iron/ steel balls has been admitted by the Opposite Party and not denied by the Opposite Party.  The above facts clearly show that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and that the Opposite Party had duped the complainant by their deficiency in service.

5.      It is further submitted that the Opposite Party had given wide publication in UDAYAVANI daily newspaper contending that they are dealing with genuine and pure gold and have further offered a sum of Rs.1 crore as challenging offer in case of any deficiency in quality of gold and deficiency in their service to their customers.  By the legal notice dt.31.12.2013 the complainant had demanded for the payment of the amounts as per the challenge published in the newspaper.  The Opposite Party has not complied with the demands in settling the amount of Rs.1 core.  Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint by restricting her claim for the compensation to Rs.99,50,000/- in view of the deficiency in service by the Opposite Party.

6.      After service of notice, the Opposite Party appeared and filed his version along with one document i.e. paper publication dt.05.04.2013 and accepted that the complainant had purchased gold chain vide bill dt.14.01.2013 by weighing 39.150 gms with “ kambi” attached to it weighing 1.050 gms with 13.27% and 13.67% as wastage respectively for a sum of Rs.1,30,693/- with VAT at 1% amounting to a sum of Rs.1,306=93 in total amounting to Rs.1,32,000/- and Opposite Party has issued 26 lucky draw coupons offering the complainant first prize as Maruthi Swift Car, second prize of gold coins 25 numbers and third prize of sarees 199 numbers which is applied all the customers who had the purchased gold during the period of the said scheme.  However, the Opposite Party denied all the other allegations of the complainant and contended that Rs.1 crore challenge ‘ as not applicable to the complainant as that offer is relating to the charging of percentage of wastage at ornaments and said offer came to effect only from 05.04.2013’.  The Opposite Party further contended that the time of packing and delivery, they will explain by showing its real weight quality BIS mark is printed and amounting how it has to be rendered to the complainant.  At the time of explain the pattern of chain the beneficiaries have noticed that between the drums/links there were merely steel particles and by knowing the Branch Manager about the said fact to the complainant that the said chain will require some re-service to remove the small particles locked between the drum/link and it cannot be viewed in bear eye.  The Manager advised to the complainant to purchase some other pattern of chain for the same value if not liked any other pattern they will refund the entire value, but, the complainant refused to return the same and requested them to remove the particles.  The Opposite Party removed the particles of the weight 180 mili gms and refund Rs.800/- to the complainant.  Hence, there is no any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part the Opposite Party and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.      The complainant has filed their affidavit evidence and also marked their documents at Ex.C1 to C5.  The Opposite Party has not filed affidavit evidence.  Inspite of sufficient opportunity given to both parties, they have not advanced their arguments.

8.      On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;

(i)       Whether the complaint deserves to be allowed?

             (ii)      What order?

          9.      The findings to the above points are;

                   (i)       Affirmative

                   (ii)      As per final order

REASONS

10.    Perused the contents of the complaint, objections filed by the Opposite Party, affidavit evidence filed by the complainant and materials on record, we noticed that the Opposite Party has admitted that the complainant has purchased the gold chain vide bill dt.14.01.2013 weighing 39.150 gms with “ kambi” attached to it weighing 1.050 gms with 13.27% and 13.67% as wastage respectively for a sum of Rs.1,30,693/- with VAT at 1% amounting to a sum of Rs.1,306=93 in all amounting to Rs.1,32,000/-.  The only point involved in the present case on hand is that the Opposite Party had given wide publication in “Udaya Vani” daily newspaper contending that their billing with genuine and pure gold and for further offered Rs.1 crore challenge in case of any deficiency in the quality of gold and deficiency in their service to their customers as per the challenge published in the newspaper and the Opposite Party has not complied with the demands in settling the amount of Rs.1 crore.  Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint by restricting her claim for the compensation to Rs.99,50,000/- in view of the deficiency in service by the Opposite Party.  In the present case, as per the allegation of the complainant, the complainant has purchased the gold chain on 14.01.2013 and approached the Opposite Party on 25.12.2013 as the complainant felt fishy about the quality of the gold chain and the Opposite Party has tested the chain and removed nine iron/steel balls from the chain from one link and the Opposite Party had marked some other links in all 14 links total 0.180 mili grams of Rs.800/- for iron/steel balls on the same day i.e. 14.01.2013 when the complainant has purchased the chain.  Hence, the allegations made by the complainant is that she approached the Opposite Party on 25.12.2013 about the quality of the gold chain is unbelievable.  The complainant has produced the paper publication dt.27.12.2013 in “ Udaya Vani”  and the Opposite Party has produced another paper publication dt.05.04.2013 in “Kannada Prabha” for “ONE CRORE CHALLENGE”.

11.    Perused the both paper publication, the complainant is no where coming under the ambit of the said scheme.  Because the complainant has purchased the chain on 14.01.2013 which is prior to the both dates i.e. 05.04.2013 and 27.12.2013.  In the newspaper dt.05.04.2013, the offer starts from 05.04.2013 only.  Hence in our opinion, the complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Opposite Party.  Moreover, the Opposite Party has not filed affidavit evidence and without any affidavit evidence, there is no weightage to the contention taken by the Opposite Party.  Only considering the paper publication produced by the complainant and the Opposite Party, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for the compensation of Rs.99,50,000/- in the ambit of such claim “One Crore Challenge”.  Moreover, there is no any prayer by the complainant other than the compensation.  Taking into consideration, affidavit evidence of the complainant and after perusing the documents, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Opposite Party in “One Crore Challenge” scheme.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled for the compensation claimed in the complaint.  However, the allegations made by the complainant about the chain that the chain was in poor quality and the removal of iron/steel balls from the chain which was admitted by the Opposite Party in their objection, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- only.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The complaint is allowed.

The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation within 30 days from the date of this Order.

Forward free copies to both the parties. 

                   Sd/-                                                            Sd/-                               

MEMBER                                           JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*