In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 490 / 2009.
1) Smt. Ratna Chatterjee and
2) Sri Rajarshi Chatterjee
of FD 146, Salt Lake City, Sector-3, P.O. Sech Bhavan, Kolkata-106. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) M/s. Syndicate Jewellers (P) Ltd.,
22, Camac Street, Block-A, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700016. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 29 Dated 28/08/2012
The instant case has been filed by the complainant with an allegation of deficiency in rendering service against the opposite parties.
In a nutshell, the case of the complaints is that the on seeing an advertisement in Ananda Bazar Patrika published on 19.10.06.[annex-1 of complaint ptn.] by the o.p. in respect of a special sales offer, the complainants purchased gold jewellery worth Rs.34,110/- only (gold content 38.37gms, invoice no. K/CM – annex-II).Though in the said advertisement of o.p. it was said that for any item the making charge would be Re.1/- only, the o.p. actually charged Rs.161/- only as making charge and others. However, the other charges are not spelt out.
On 20.10.07., the complainants visited the showroom of o.p. again with her family and purchased gold ornament or Rs.39,200/- only. As per the scheme of 2006, the complainants were entitled to Re.1/- for making charge upto the same weight of gold as purchased on the first occasion (i.e.38.370 gms.). But the o.p. actually charged Rs.857/- only for 40.830 gms.
On 20.10.07., they asked the o.p. to buy back the gold ornament purchased on the first occasion. The terms and conditions mentioned overleaf of ops invoices did not contain any clause regarding any general or across the board deduction on the ruling price / weight at the time of buy back. But they wanted to apply a deduction of 5% on weight of gold overruling their own terms and conditions and the general business practice in this industry. When the complainant pointed this out the o.p’s reply was ‘everything cannot be written on the bill’. This was an instance of ‘unfair trade practice’ on the part of the o.p.
As per the complainants, in the case of the second purchase they had to visit the shop several times because the o.p. could not maintain the delivery schedule or the shop of o.p. did not inform the correct date of delivery although so assured at the time to acceptance of order.
Lastly, it was an unique experience for the complainant that each time they visited the shop of the o.p., the dealing sales person gave a different version of their buy back policy.
Hence, the complainant has no alternative but to file the instant case before this Forum for redressal of her dispute. The complainant has prayed for relieves as mentioned in the petition of the complainant.
O.P. appears before this forum and contested the case and denied all the material allegations against them and prayed for dismissal of the case in limini.
Decision with reasons : -
We have gone through all the documents brought before this Forum by both the parties and heard only the case of the complainant in full and none appears before this Forum at the time of hearing argument of the case. Before going to the merit of the instant case it is needed to be mentioned that as per o.p. the instant case it hopelessly time barred. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that it is settle principle of law that cause of action is bundle of fact and form record it is observed that complainants purchased gold from the o.p. lastly on 20.10.07. and complainant no.1 filed earlier a case (vide no.before this Forum in the year of 2008 and that case was dismissed by this Forum for non-joinder of necessary party and liberty was given to the complaint no.1 to lodge a case afresh with proper cause title and forms of complainants u/s12 of C.P.Act,1986 within thirty days from the date of communication of that order. And the complainants have filed the instant case before this Forum on 27.12.09. Therefore, it our view that the instant case has been filed within stipulated period as per provision of the C.P.Act,1986. From the copy of the advertisement published on 19.10.06. in Anandabazar Patrika, it is crystal clear that it was written that “On Dhanteras day, take any item, take all items at 1 Re., making charge.” and no where it was mentioned about any other charges. But, from the Tax Invoice (Annex-2 of compliant ptn.) it is observed by this Forum that alongwith making charge as other charges Rs.160/- had been taken by the o.p. from the complainant 2. Here it pertinent to mention that as per section 2(1)(r )(vi) of the C.P. Act, 1986 of the C.P. Act, 1986 “makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services” and as per 2(1)(r )(ix) of the C.P. Act, 1986 “materially misleads the public concerning the price at which a product or like products or goods or services, have been or are, ordinarily sold or provided, and for this purpose a representation as to price shall be deemed to refer to the price at which the product or goods or services has or have been sold by sellers ……… unless it is clearly specified to be the price at which the product has been sold …… by the person by whom or on whose behalf the representation is made”. Therefore, we are of the opinion that had committed unfair trade practice for which complainants have to suffer tremendous harassment and mental agony and they are entitled to be compensated by the o.p.
Regarding the fact of giving opportunity of charging Re1/- as making charge in case of second purchasing dt. 20.10.07., the o.p. has raised the point that as the first purchase on 19.10.06 had made by complainant no.2 and second purchase dt.20.10.07. had made by complainant no.1, the complainants were not entitled for offer as mentioned in aforesaid advertisement. In this regard it is needed to be mentioned that in that advertisement it was never mentioned that the purchaser/customer should be same for obtaining the facility of making charge @Re.1/-. Moreover, the relation between the complainant no.1 and complainant no.2 is mother and son respectively and as per the complainants the ‘user’ of both the ornaments is complainant no.1. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in case of second purchase of ornaments by the complainants there was no bar upon the o.p. to giver the offer as advertised in the Print Media and it is our strong believe that o.p. had committed unfair trade practice for which complainants have to suffer tremendous harassment and mental agony and they are entitled to be compensated by the o.p. and the o.p.is also duty bound to refund (Rs.160/-+ Rs.804/- = Rs.964/-)
Hence,
Ordered,
The case of the complainant is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.P. is directed to refund Rs.964/- and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainants within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost u/s 21(1) of Consumer Protection Regulation.
