Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/763/2015

M/s Titan Co. Ltd. (Through its Authorised Representative Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gautam ) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ms. Sushma Mathur W/o Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mathur - Opp.Party(s)

Vimal Sain

01 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 763 /2015

 

M/s. Titan Company Ltd., Kashi Bhawan, Near Panch Batti M.I.Road, Jaipur

Vs.

 

Ms.Sushma Mathur w/o Mr.Sudhir Kumar Mathur, r/o 47 Jam Enclave, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

 

 

Date of Order 1.02 .2016

 

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr.Abhishek Bhandari counsel for the appellant

Mr.B.L.Bhader counsel for the respondent

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Jaipur 1^st dated 9.4 .2015 whereby the complaint of the respondent has been allowed.

 

The contention of the respondent before the court below was that the appellant had charged higher rate of gold as compared to market rate.

 

The contention of the appellant was that he has not charged the higher rate of gold but he has also charged the rate including making/ wastage and VAT and further he has contended that the gold prices are different in different jewelery shops due to location, value addition and taxes. Hence he had pleaded alternatively but he had not accepted the fact that higher rate of gold has been charged from the respondent.

 

The contention of the respondent is that instead of Rs.30,250/- per 10 gms. the appellant had charged Rs.33,332/- per 10 gms.and in reply to the notice of the respondent it has been stated that it was inclusive of making/wastage. No making

3

 

 

has been shown in the schedule annexed to the reply and wastage shown as 6.50%. Admittedly the respondent has purchased 10 gm. manufactured gold coin and wastage could not be charged from the respondent as she has not ordered for the making of any gold coin but she has purchased the gold coin in the condition in which it was shown to her and which was already ready with the appellant. It is not the case of the respondent that wastage is not re-usable by the appellant. Further on the gross amount including gold rate and wastage VAT has been imposed which is also deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

 

Further more in retail invoice Ex.12 there is no mention of the fact that wastage is charged. It has been first time pleaded in the reply to the notice which seems to be after thought. To the consumer in Ex.12 no bifurcation is given as regard to price, making charge or wastage which is also unfair on the part of the appellant.

 

In view of the above the court below has rightly allowed

 

 

4

 

the complaint and no interference is needed. The appeal is liable to be rejected.

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm