Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/125/2016

M/s.B.Lilly - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Priju Joseph (Joyalukkas india (P) Ltd) - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Persion

04 Feb 2020

ORDER

                                                                             Date of filing      : 25.04.2016

                                                                               Date of disposal : 04.02.2020

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.125/2016

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 04^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020

                                 

B. Lilly,

W/o. Mr. K.C. Jai Prakash,

No.32/2, Appar Street,

Vivekananda Nagar,

Kodungaiyur,

Chennai – 600 118.                                                        .. Complainant. 

                                                                                                  ..Versus..

 

1. Mr. Priju Joseph,

Branch Manager,

Joyalukkas,

No.39, North Usman Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

2. The Proprietor,

Joyalukkas India Pvt. Ltd.,

Marine Drive,

Kochi,

India – 682 031.                                                    ..  Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant                              : Party in person

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. K.V. Babu & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to refund a sum of Rs.50,000/- being the cheated amount and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for negligence, deficiency in service, mental agony, hardship and unfair trade practice with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that after seeing the advertisement published by the 2^nd opposite party jewel shop in DHINA THANDHI dated:11.01.2016, approached the 1^st opposite party to purchase a new thaali chain weighing about 6 sovereigns of gold by exchanging her old ornaments on 13.01.2016 and handed over the same to the 1^st opposite party staff (Ghantasala Rama Krishna).   The ornaments handed over are listed below:-

1. A mangal sutra chain weighing about 4 & ½ sovereigns of gold
2. A thin chain weighing about 2 sovereigns of gold
3. A ring weighing about 3.02 grams
4. 2 Naanals each one weighing about 2+2=4 grams
5. An ear ring weighing 1 & ½ grams
6. An ear Thongal only weighing about 1 & ½ grams

Totalling about 62.02 grams (all are of 916 KDM Hall Mark Jewels) of value about Rs.1,50,000/-.  The complainant submits that the 1^st opposite party staff checked and weighed the old jewels and informed to the complainant that the purity of gold is 916 hall mark only and it will fetch Rs.1,40,000/- but it will vary either more or less after melting.  The complainant submits that the 1^st opposite party staff after melting the old ornaments produced the bill No.SCP-31525 CST No.855211/25.07.2002 mentioned that item name as SCRAP GOLD Gross weight 44.100 grams  valuing  for Rs.1,03,777/-.  But to the shock and surprise, the amount calculated by the opposite parties’ staff is only as 44.100 grams instead of 62.02 grams at Rs.1,03,777/-.  Therefore, the 1^st opposite party staff has swindled 03.75 grams of gold in the name of melting out process.  

2.     The complainant submits that she purchased a new Thali chain of 22 k 916 Hall marked jewellery weighing 32.260 grams for Rs.85,392 on 13.01.2016 and received back the balance amount of Rs.18,385/- minus from Rs.1,03,777/- valued  by the 1^st opposite party for SCRAP GOLD vide bill No.SCP-31525/CST No.855211/25-07-2002, Dated:13.01.2001.   Thus, the complainant has been parted with a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the 1^st opposite party.   The complainant submits that she purchased 3 items of the SILVER ARTICLES namely;

1. Silver Anklet weighing 18.300 grams

2. Silver spoon weighing 16.200 grams

3. A silver plate weighing 437.150 grams from the 1^st opposite party.  

It will be crystal clear that the 1^st opposite party have been plundering the money of the general public by utilizing the scheme introduced by the 2^nd opposite party through paper publication dated:11.01.2016 and the same will also be evident from their own receipt bearing C S T No.855211/25.07.2002 vide bill No. S A S;12282 which shows that the value of the Silver Anklet is Rs.850/- it is pertinent to state that the actual price comes only about Rs.658.31 but not as Rs.850/- as stated in their receipt.  Likewise, the actual value of the spoon is about Rs.578/- but not as Rs.772/- and as such, the actual price of the silver plate comes about Rs.15,606/- only but not as Rs.19,104.45 as mentioned by the 1^st opposite party’s staff.  Thus, no jewel seller will impose such a huge amount as making charges or towards wastages as the case may be like in the case of the 2^nd opposite party’s staff who imposed huge amount as in the ratio of 1:3 in respect of the silver materials. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:03.02.2016 to the opposite parties 1 & 2 and the same was acknowledged by the opposite parties but no reply sent by the opposite parties.  The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the complainant and two other ladies with a child came to the opposite parties, T. Nagar jewellery shop on 13.01.2016 and brought some gold to have exchange offer. Then, one of the representative of the 1^st opposite party weighed the gold ornaments as 44.850 grams in front of the complainant.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that with the consent of the complainant, the old gold jewels was taken for melting in the goldsmith’s room to remove the rust.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that it is wrong to state that the mother-in-law of the complainant accompanied with the 1^st opposite party’s representative to the goldsmith room.  The entire process was carried out in front of the complainant and her representatives.  The opposite parties denies that they had made statement to the complainant that the old gold jewels are pure category and it would fetch the complainant at about Rs.1,40,000/-.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that a receipt is given to the complainant after melting the scrap gold weight mentioned as 44.100 grams valued as Rs.1,03,777.00/-.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the entire transaction done in a bonafide manner by means of all applicable rules and practices and have rendered best service to the complainant.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence, the compliant may be dismissed as devoid of merits with cost by this Forum. 

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and documents Ex.B1 alone is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the parted amount of Rs.50,000/- as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for negligence, deficiency in service, mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

        Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard their Counsels also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   The complainant pleaded and contended that after seeing the advertisement published by the 2^nd opposite party jewel shop in DHINA THANDHI as per Ex.A1 dated:11.01.2016 approached the 1^st opposite party to purchase a new thaali chain weighing about 6 sovereigns of gold by exchanging her old ornaments on 13.01.2016 and handed over the same to the 1^st opposite party staff (Ghantasala Rama Krishna).   The ornaments handed over are listed below:-

1. A mangal sutra chain weighing about 4 & ½ sovereigns of gold

2. A thin chain weighing about 2 sovereigns of gold

3. A ring weighing about 3.02 grams

4. 2 Naanals each one weighing about 2+2=4 grams

5. An ear ring weighing 1 & ½ grams

6. An ear Thongal only weighing about 1 & ½ grams

Totalling about 62.02 grams (all are of 916 KDM) of value about Rs.1,50,000/-.   But no document filed to prove the same.   The complainant has not taken any steps to file the list of articles produced at the time of handing over the old jewels.

7.     Further, the contention of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party staff checked and weighed old jewels and informed to the complainant that the purity of gold is 916 KDM hall mark only and it will fetch Rs.1,40,000/- but it will vary either more or less after melting but no records produced to prove the said averments.   Further, the complainant contended that while weighing and melting the old ornaments her mother-in-law and younger sister was with the 1^st opposite party staff as her representative.  But in contra the complainant pleaded and contended that the entire process of weighing and melting was done by the opposite parties without her permission and presence proves that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.  Further the complainant pleaded and contended that the 1^st opposite party staff after melting the old ornaments produced the bill No.SCP-31525 CST No.855211/25.07.2002 mentioned that items name as SCRAP GOLD Gross weight 44.100 grams  valuing  for Rs.1,03,777/- as per Ex.A2(S) page 3.  Therefore, the 1^st opposite party staff has swindled 03.75 grams of gold in the name of melting out process.   But no record produced to prove the shortage of gold and amount.   Further the complainant pleaded and contended that she purchased new Thali chain of 22 k 916 Hall marked jewellery weighing 32.260 grams for Rs.85,392 on 13.01.2016 and received back the balance amount of Rs.18,385/- minus from Rs.1,03,777/- valued  by the 1^st opposite party for SCRAP GOLD as per Ex.A2 (S) page 4; thereby, the 1^st opposite party swindled an amount of Rs.50,000/-.  The complainant has also not produced any document to prove the same contention also.  

8.     Further the contention of the complainant is that she purchased 3 items of the SILVER ARTICLES namely;

1. Silver Anklet weighing 18.300 grams

2. Silver spoon weighing 16.200 grams

3. A silver plate weighing 437.150 grams from the 1^st opposite party as per Ex.A2(S) and the total cost of the said 3 silver articles is Rs.19,877.22/-.   But the complainant vehemently disputed that the cost of 3 items of silver articles which comes about to Rs.15,606/- only.  The 1^st opposite party collected huge amount from the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice but no record filed to prove the contention of the complainant.   The complainant also has not taken any steps to produce the rate of silver on the alleged day, 13.01.2016. The complainant issued legal notice dated:03.02.2016 to the opposite parties 1 & 2 as per Ex.A3 and the same was acknowledged by the opposite parties as per Ex.A4 & Ex.A5 but no reply sent by the opposite parties.  Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this case.

9.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties would contend that admittedly, the complainant and two other ladies with a child came to the opposite parties, T. Nagar jewellery shop and brought some gold to avail the exchange offer.   Then one of the representative of the 1^st opposite party weighted the gold ornaments brought by them in front of/ in the presence of the complainant as 44.850 grams.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that with the consent of the complainant, the old gold jewels was taken for melting in the goldsmith’s room to remove the dirt.    Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the mother-in-law of the complainant accompanied with the 1^st opposite party’s representative to the goldsmith room; is also admitted by the complainant in their complaint and proof affidavit.  Hence the entire process was carried out in front of/ in the presence of the complainant and her representatives disproves the contention of the complainant that the opposite parties had committed the unfair practice of cheating and abnormal reduction in the amount of gold.   Further the opposite parties denies that the complainant had made a statement that the old gold jewels are pure 916 KDM and it would fetch an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- is imaginary. Further the opposite parties contended that a receipt is given to the complainant after melting the SCRAP GOLD weight mentioned as 44.100 grams valued as Rs.1,03,777.00/- only as per Ex.A2(S).   Hence, the allegation of parted with a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards newly purchased jewellery is nothing but concocted stony of the complainant.   Further the contention of the opposite parties  is that the entire transaction done in a bonafide manner by means of all applicable rules and practices and have rendered best service to the complainant.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 04^th day of February 2020. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	11.01.2016	Copy of advertisement made by the opposite parties
Ex.A2	13.01.2016	Copy of 4 cash bills
Ex.A3	03.02.2016	Copy of legal notice with postal slip
Ex.A4	04.02.2016	Copy of acknowledgement card
Ex.A5	06.02.2016	Copy of acknowledgement card

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  

Ex.B1

03.03.2016

Copy of reply notice sent by the opposite parties to complainant

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                          PRESIDENT