<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 19th JANUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2600/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Smt.Bhagya. NResiding at No.50,Byanna Building,Byrasandra,C.V. Ramannagar Post,Bangalore – 560 093.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Partner / Proprietor,New Prem Jewellers,No.1053, BEML Main Road,New Thippasandra,Bangalore – 560 075.Advocate – Sri.M.B.Mathapathi<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to exchange the gold ornaments or refund the cost of the ornaments and pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased the golden ornaments worth of Rs.1,07,500/- from OP on 14.01.2007 vide bill No.2121. Within few days she noticed fading of the ornaments. Immediately she approached the OP. OP advised her to get polished the said ornaments. Complainant is obliged but still because of the poor quality of the gold the fade continued. On repeated insistence OP failed to heed to her demand. On the other hand collected Rs.8,000/- extra on 14.01.2007 and without exchange collected Rs.13,000/-. OP promised to sell the gold of 91.6% but whereas it sold the gold of a standard of only 82.58% thereby practiced fraud on the complainant. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant either to replace the ornaments with the standard gold of 91.6% or refund the cost went in futile. Thus she felt both unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is aware of gold standard of 82.58% and she opted for the purchase of the said gold ornaments for the cost. Hence there is no unfair practice as alleged. The allegations of the complainant that the ornaments got faded and OP advised for polishing them is false. On the receipt of the complaint from the complainant a suitable reply is given by the OP through his Advocate. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. Complainant never placed orders for the quality of 91.6% gold with respect to the ornaments in question. Under such circumstances OP is not obliged to exchange the same. OP collected the amount towards the value of the ornaments and its quality that was sold. No excess of amount is collected as alleged. Entire complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased several golden ornaments including the long chain from OP on 14.01.2007 vide bill No.2121 and paid the cost to the tune of Rs.1,07,500/-. Copy of the bill is produced. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that within a short time she noticed ornaments got faded. Then she approached the OP about the quality of gold used. OP advised her to get them polished. She opted for the same but the result was one and the same. Thus she felt that she is duped. When she sought for exchange of the ornaments OP demanded Rs.13,000/- more and took Rs.8,000/- more than the actual cost of the ornaments. Complainant for no fault of her is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss.<br /> <br /> 7. It is further contended by the complainant that she got tested the ornaments through Rupa Assay Centre and came to know that the standard of gold used by OP in manufacture of the said ornaments is only 82.58% and not of a accepted normal standard of 91.6%. Hence she demanded the OP to refund the cost or replace the ornaments with a gold standard of 91.6%. Again there was no response. Of course the allegations of the complainant that OP advised her to get polished the said ornaments has no basis. Unfortunately complainant has not filed the affidavit of the Rupa Assay Centre who alleged to have tested the said ornaments. The so called reports given by Rupa Assay Centre are rather contradictory when compared with bill issued by the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. With regard to some gold chain it is one Mohan who took the said chain to Rupa Assay Centre that too on 20.11.2008, though it is alleged to have been purchased on 14.01.2007. The affidavit of the said Mohan is not filed. The other receipts issued by the said Rupa Assay Centre does not tally with the weight noted by the OP in the bill issued. Under such circumstances no such importance can be given to the said reports.<br /> <br /> 9. Though it is much contended by the complainant that OP promised to sell her the golden ornaments of a gold standard of 91.6%, for this basically there is no proof. No agreement or document is produced to substantiate the same. OP has contended that complainant accepted the gold standard of 82.58% and purchased the said golden ornaments. It collected the cost as per the standard of the gold. So in absence of any written agreement or averment made in the receipt with regard to the quality and standard of gold that is to be sold the bare and vague allegations of the complainant rather along can’t be believed. <br /> <br /> 10. The so called bill issued by the OP itself goes to show that the “Goods once sold can’t taken back or exchanged”. Having understood the terms and conditions complainant purchased the ornaments. Now it is too much on the part of the complainant to seek for the exchange of the said ornaments. What made the complainant to keep mum for all these 20 months without agitating her right is not known. During this delay much water might have been flown. There is no satisfactory explanation with regard to delay in filing the complaint. <br /> <br /> 11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the complainant has failed to establish both unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. All the allegations of the complainant are baseless. There is no supporting evidence. When that is so, she is not entitled for the relief claimed. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 19th day of January 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />