Karnataka

Kolar

CC/53/2014

N. Anupkumar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Shubh Jewelers - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jan 2015

ORDER

  Date of Filing : 15.10.2014

  Date of Order : 31.01.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

 

Dated 31^st  JANUARY 2015

 

PRESENT

 

Sri. SYED ANSER KALEEM           …….      PRESIDENT

Sri. H.JANARDHAN                         ……..     MEMBER

 

CC No. 53 / 2014

 

N. Anupkumar,

No.89, Srichakradari Nilaya,

Near Plague Mariyamma Temple,

Sadramanagala,

Kadugodi Post,

Bangalore – 560 067.

 

 (By Inperson)                                                         ……. Complainant

 

V/s.

 

 

1 M/s. Shubh Jewelers/

M/s. Prince Jewelers,

Messline Floor,

Ashok Towers,

Near Gandhi Circle,

Robertsonpet,

K.G.F – 563 122.

 

(Ex-parte)                                                               ……. Opposite Party

 

ORDER

 

By Sri. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

 

This Complaint is filed by the Complainant against the OPs U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging the deficiency in service and praying to pass an order directing the OPs to pay the difference gold value of Rs.17,320/- and such other reliefs. 

 

2.       The brief facts of the Complaint is that, complainant has approached the OP in order to purchase gold ornament on 12.12.2013 by exchanging  his old gold chain making of  916 KDM gold and purchased a new gold chain.   The grievance of the complainant is that, on the day of the said purchase the value of the gold rate is Rs.3,024/- per gram.     Complainant states that the his gold chain weighed 24 grams, but the retailer weighed and taken the weight of his gold chain 23.100 grams only due to oxygen in digital weighing machine, then the OP towards adjustment of the price of new gold chain forcefully cut an old ornament which was tied with Thali weighing about 1.96 grams by deviating the actual weighing and to cheat the complainant, the OP by giving refreshments and travel bag as a gift to his parents.    The complainant after going to home verified the rates, but to his utter shock and surprise, he comes to know that the OP has cheated by the OP.    The details/transactions of the gold purchased by the complainant are as hereunder:

 

Old 916 KDM 23.100 grams x 3024 Old ornaments 1.96 grams x 3024 The total old ornaments value is	Rs.69,854/- Rs.5,927/-
	Rs.75,781/-
The new KDM 916 gold chain 19.33 x 3024	Rs.58,453/-
According to Shubh Jewelary rate Old ornaments value is Rs.75,781/- The new KDM 916 gold chain 19.33 x 3024=Rs.58,453/-                      Difference Amount – Rs.17,328/-	Rs.17,328/-

 

The complainant got approached Shubh Jewelers at Bangalore, he came to know that the gold purchased by him was neither BIS Hallmark nor of a Shubh Jewelers Symbol.            Then complainant got issued the two legal notices through Advocate, but there was no proper response from the OP.   Hence this Complaint.

 

3.       Upon service of notice, Op for the reasons best known to them have remained absent and accordingly Op is placed exparte. 

 

4.       To substantiate the case of the Complainant, he has filed his evidence by way of affidavit and also we have heard the arguments of the Complainant. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record, following points will be arisen for our consideration.

 

(i)      Whether the Complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

 

(ii)     Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief?

 

(iii)    What Order ?

 

5.       Our findings to the above points are:

 

(i)      In the affirmative

 

(ii)     In the affirmative

 

(iii)    As per final order

 

REASONS

 

6.       Point No. (i) –  On perusing the evidence placed before us and also perusing the receipts produced by the complainant in respect of gold ornament transaction in question with the OP it discloses that complainant in exchange of old gold chain weighing 24 grams to the new chain.    The grievance of the complainant is that though his old 916 KDM weighing 24 grams, but the OP weighed it for 23.100 grams chain and worked out the value at the rate of Rs.3,024/-, which comes to Rs.69,854/- and also the rate of the new chain is weighing 19.33 grams and value the rate of Rs.58,453/-, whereas the OP did not refund the excess amount to the complainant.    On perusing the said calculation produced by the complainant, the OP initially taken the old gold ornament weighting about 24 grams and calculated to 23.100 grams and there is a difference 0.900  grams and also 1.96 grams from the Thali.   When we add 1.96 grams plus 0.900 grams it obviously comes to 2.86 grams and the same is valued i.e. 2.86 x Rs.3,024/- it comes to Rs.8,648.64, for which complainant entitled.    Though Forum notice is issued to the OP, it is his bounden duty to come and assist the Court in order to reach to the truth.    The absence of the OP and available materials placed before us under these circumstances, we have no other option to disbelieve the allegation of the complainant.   Hence, the complainant establish the case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the facts brought to the notice of the Forum made us to reach the conclusion, the act of the OP deplorable one and hence we hold OP is not only deficient in its service but he resorted to unfair trade practice too.    In the light of above discussions, we accordingly hold Points (i) & (ii) in the affirmative.

 

7.       Point No. (iii) –  In the result, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

 

1. The Complaint is allowed in part with cost.

    

2. OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs. Rs.8,648.64 to the complainant along with interest at rate of 12% p.a. from the date of purchase of the gold ornament till the date of realization.

    

3. OP is directed to pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

    

4. OPs are directed to comply the order within 30 days and to submit compliance report to this Forum within 45 days from the date of this Order.

            

5. Send free copy of this order to both the parties.

    

          Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, the 31^st January 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

                MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT