- Sayeeda Bano,
5, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata-700043. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- M/s. Rupa Shree Jewellers,
174/A/1, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata-700024. ________ Opposite Party
Present : Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 18 Dated 27-01-2014.
The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant purchased two gold ornaments from M/S. Rupashree Jewelers (hearing after referred to as o.p. ) on 23/04/2011 to gift her married daughter. The particular of said ornament is one Noath Tana of 6.200 gm. of 22 carat gold and Teaka of 3.930 gm. of 22 carat gold weight. The total weight of said two ornaments were 10.130 gm. and amounting to Rs. 22,100/- as per bill. Thereafter the o.p. deducted Rs. 5000/- as discount and the complainant collected the said ornaments by paying in cash [ annexure A ]. Thereafter in the month of August complainant’s daughter accompanied by her mother – in- law visited M/S. P. C. Chandra Jewelers to purchase gold ornaments by exchanging the said two gold ornaments as she was not satisfied with the design of the said ornaments. The shop keeper informed her that the said gold ornaments are not pure and they would not exchange the same. The complainant felt embarrassed and humiliated by knowing this. Then the complainant asked her daughter to return the same to verify about the quality an purity. For that purpose complainant visited a gold shop named M/S S. S. Assey Centre situated at 46. Manoher Das Street., Kolkata – 700007 and the complainant became surprised to know that the purity of gold is only 14 karat [ annexure B ]. The complainant has filed the instant application as the o.p. selling gold ornament of 14 karat gold and taking money of 22 karat gold. Therefore complainant prays for an order directing the o.p. to refund the sum of Rs. 28,000/- as per current market value of 22 karat gold, rs. 4000/- as testing fee along with compensation and cost.
O.p. appeared before the Forum and filed their w/v. in their w/v o.p. has denied all material allegations interalia stated that the complaint is nothing but a travesty of truth and epitome of falsehood. Complainant has falsely stated that the gold ornaments in question are in 14 karats and the said certificate of purity was issued by S. S. Assay Centre which is neither government test house nor accredated / approved / certified testing agency recommended by government. This report has no reliability and acceptability. More over, o.p. has stated that they have not to supply 22 karats gold. This o.p. did not sale Hallmark gold ornaments to the complainant. There fore the case should be dismissed in limini with cost.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular.
It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased two ornaments from o.p. on 23/04/2011.From annexure A filed with complaint petition we have seen the gold license no., CST no., WBST no. and the gold rate are written. This is a tax voice cum sale memo. So this is a pukka bill. The gross weight and net weight of ornaments were 10. 130 gm. complainant has also filed test certificate of National Test House from where we have seen that those two ornaments in question are of 15.06 carat [ tikka ] and of 14.19 carat [ nose – pin with chain ]. So we have nothing to say that the ornaments in question are surely below the purity level of 22 carat gold when the National Test House [Eastern Region] has given this certificate. O.p. also did not challenge this certificate. We are in the view that the purity of the gold in the said ornaments was much below the purity of 22 carat where the o.p. has charged the gold rate of 24 carat. O.p. also did not say that they have claimed the gold rate for 14 or 15 carat gold. They have not annexed any document which shows that the rate of 22 carat gold for that day was much higher than the rate they have charged from the complainant. Therefore o.p. is liable for unfair trade practice. In this connection we have also relied upon the judgment of National Commission in r.p. no. 3020/2003 in Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress through President Shri B. S. Sharma vs. Aggarwal Jewellers through his partner Shri Raj Mohon Agarwal. So, the complainant has substantiated her case and as such she is entitled to get relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest against the o.p. with cost. O.p. is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
