Tripura

West Tripura

CC/13/94

Smti Jhuma Datta Chowdhury - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.C Chandra Jewellers. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. B. Debnath A.L.Saha

06 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-94    of   2013

Smti. Jhuma Dutta Chowdhury,
W/O- Shri Dhiman Debbarma,
East of Bhagaban Thakur Chowmuhani,
North Banamalipur,  
District- West Tripura.            .  .........Complainant.

     ______VERSUS_____

1. P.C. Chandra Jewellers,
    Branch Office
    60, HGB Road, 
    Paradise Chowmuhani,
    Agartala, West Tripura. 

2. The Managing Director,
    P.C. Chandra Jewellery Apex(Pvt) Ltd.,
    Regd. Office,
    P-37A, CIT Road, Kolkata 700 014.      ….......Opposite parties.
    
                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant       : Sri A.L. Saha,
                  Sri Joydeep Pal,
                  Sri Swarup Pandit and 
                  Sri Bhabatosh Debnath,
                          Advocates. 
                           
For the O.Ps             :  Sri Ranjit Dasgupta and 
                 Sri H. Dutta,
                        Advocates.

    

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : -  16.01.15.

 

J U D G M E N T

        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Smt. Jhuma Dutta Chowdhury of East Bhagaban Thakur Chowmuhani, Agartala against the O.Ps, namely P.C. Chandra Jewellers, Agartala Branch and the Managing Director, P.C. Chandra Jewellery Apex(Pvt) Ltd., Kolkata over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps. 

2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that on 25.01.11 the complainant had purchased a gold ornament (single line Mangalsutra) weighing 8.090 gm, purity 22 k for Rs.17,479.95 from the showroom of the O.P. No.1. On 15.03.12 the complainant along with her husband visited the sales centre of the O.P. No.1 and deposited the Mangalsutra with them for some minor repairs. Having received information that the Mangalsutra was ready for delivery after repairs, the complainant's husband went to the showroom of the O.P. No.1 on 27.06.12 and collected the Mangalsutra. The complainant paid Rs.120/- being repairing charge of the Mangalsutra. On returning home, when the complainant's husband handed over the Mangalsutra to the complainant, it was detected that the original colour of the locket of the Mangalsutra had been changed and it did not look like a Mangalsutra made of gold. Then on 10.08.12 the complainant along with her husband revisited the sales centre of the O.P. No.1 and handed over the Mangalsutra to them with a request to restore its original colour. The O.P. No.1 assured them that the original colour of the ornament would be restored as they were having their own skilled gold smith. The complainant visited the sales centre of the O.P. No.1 on a number of times to collect the Mangalsutra but they could not deliver the same within the promised time. Finding no other alternative, on 22.02.13 the complainant served a legal notice upon the O.Ps for replacement of the damaged Mangalsutra  with a new one of similar weight and colour but the O.Ps did not respond to her notice. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.Ps attracts negligence and deficiency in service, for which the complainant is liable to be adequately compensated by them.
3.        The O.Ps contested the case by filing written objection. They opposed the claim of the complainant stating, inter alia, that after using the Mangalsutra for more than a year the complainant along with her husband had deposited the same with O.P. No.1 for some minor repairs on 15.03.12. After expiry of 3 months from the date of deposit of the Mangalsutra, the complainant's husband visited their shop on 27.06.12 for collection of the item. He collected the Mangalsutra from the O.P. No.1 after being satisfied as to the repairing work of the same. On 10.08.12 the complainant again visited the sales centre of the O.P. No.1 and alleged that the repairing work of the Mangalsutra was not done properly. It is asserted by the O.Ps that they never provided any guarantee for such Mina colour when they were aware that it was most delicate and temporary. Not only them, no jewellery ever gives any guarantee for Mina colour of Mangalsutra or any gold ornament sold at their jewellery shop. After about 2 months from the date of receiving the Mangalsutra on 10.08.12 the complainant came to their showroom and expressed her dissatisfaction saying that the repairing work of the Mangalsutra was not done properly and she left the Mangalsutra with them saying that it was only be taken by her after proper repairing. The O.P. No.1, after repairing of the Mangalsutra, contacted with the complainant and her husband on 4 occasions over telephone to take delivery of the repaired Mangalsutra but they did not come to receive the same. Further that, as per clause- (2)(a) of the terms and conditions quoted on the back of the cash memo of the O.Ps, it is clearly mentioned that 'ornaments if not approved can be changed within one week of purchase provided it is unused', but the complainant deposited the gold ornaments with the O.P. No.1 after elapse of the specified date. Yet the O.P. No.1 received the same as a mark of good gesture. It is also stated that the case is not maintainable having lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. It is denied that the O.Ps were negligent and deficient in any manner what so ever in rendering service to the complainant.
4.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined herself as P.W.1 and her husband as P.W. 2 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:-
    Exhibit 1: Bill dated 25.01.11,
    Exhibit 2: Bill dated 27.06.12,
    Exhibit 3: Deposit receipt dated 10.08.12,
    Exhibit 4 Series: Legal notice dated 22.02.13 with postal receipts.
5.        On the other hand, one Sri Rajib Kumar Mondal, Branch Officer of the O.P. No.1, has examined himself as O.P.W. 1 and another Smt. Ratna Sen, Sales girl of O.P. No.1, as O.P.W.2 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
    Exhibit A: Money receipts dated 09.06.10,
    Exhibit B: Bill Memo dated 25.01.11 ,
    Exhibit C: Deposit receipt dated 15.03.12,
    Exhibit D: Cash memo dated 27.06.12,
    Exhibit E: Deposit receipt dated 10.08.12.
            
            FINDINGS:
6.        The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding are;
    (I) Whether the Mina colour coated in the locket of the Mangalsutra got damaged due to negligence of the O.P. No.1; 
    (II) Whether the O.Ps were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant. If so, whether the complainant is liable to be compensated by the O.Ps.
7.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record, evidence adduced by the parties and the memoranda of written arguments filed by the parties meticulously.
8.        It is the case of the complainant that she had purchased a gold ornament (single line Mangalsutra) including a Mina coated locket weighing 8.090 gms, purity 22 k on payment of Rs.17,479.95  from the O.P. No.1 on 25.01.11. On 15.03.12 the Mangalsutra was deposited with the O.P. No.1 for some minor repairs. After the repairing work was done the complainant's husband collected the Mangalsutra on 27.06.12 and he paid Rs.120/- being the repairing charge to the O.P. No.1. On returning home, when he handed over the Mangalsutra to his wife (the complainant), it came to their notice that the original Mina colour coated over the locket had been damaged. So, they again visited the sales centre of O.P. No.1 on 10.08.12 and brought this fact to the notice of the staff of the O.P. No.1. The staff of O.P. No.1 assured them that the original Mina colour of the locket would be restored as they were having their skilled gold smith. But ultimately the O.P. No.1 could not restore the original colour and glaze of the Mangalsutra to its original position as promised. Therefore, according to the complainant, the O.Ps are guilty of deficiency in rendering service. 
9.        On the other hand, the O.P. No.1 controverted the claim of the complainant asserting that the Mangalsutra in question was placed with them for minor repairs after more than a year of use. No guarantee/ warranty wtith regard to Mina colour over gold plate was ever given to the complainant by the O.P. No.1. On the contrary, the staff of the O.P. No.1 explained to the complainant as to the demerit of Mina colour at the time of selling the Mangalsutra to the complainant. As per terms and condition depicted on the back of the cash memo, it is clearly stipulated that 'if not approved, ornaments can be changed within one week  of purchase provided it is unused.' But the complainant deposited the ornament with them for repairs after the specified time in violation of the terms and condition. The O.P. has also challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. 
10.        The first point agitated by the O.P. No.1 challenging maintainability of the proceeding raising question of territorial jurisdiction by this Forum. 
        Section 11(2)(b) of the Act provides that ''any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case wither the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution.'' 
        Admittedly, the O.P. No.1 carries on business at Agartala as a Branch Sales Office of P.C. Chandra Jewellery Apex(Pvt) Ltd. Therefore, in view of the powers conferred upon the District Forum u/s 11 of the Act, certainly this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. 
11.        Now, we may turn to the main aspect of the matter on whether the Mina colour coated in the locket of the Mangalsutra purchased by the complainant from the O.P. No.1 got faded due to negligence of the O.P. No.1.
12.        There is no denial of the fact that after purchase the complainant used the Mangalsutra for more than a year and thereafter it was placed with the O.P.1 for some minor repairs. In the complaint petition, it is not specifically stated what was the nature of repairs. It is the plea of the complainant that during the course of repairing work the original Mina colour of the locket had been damaged. The O.P. No.1 has contradicted the claim of the complainant saying that the Mangalsutra was deposited with them for restoration of the original Mina colour already faded away and they tried their best to bring back the original Mina colour of the locket in its earlier position. The complainant's husband collected the Mangalsutra from their showroom on 27.06.12 after expiry of 3 months from the date of deposit being satisfied with the repairing work of the same. 
13.        During the course of hearing, we  had an opportunity to see the Mangalsutra on production by the O.P. No.1. We noticed that the locket was having Mina colour. Since we did not have any scope to see the locket of the Mangalsutra before it was deposited with the O.P. No.1 for repairs, it is not possible on our part to say with certainty on whether after repairing the original Mina colour of the locket had been restored to its original position or not. It is known to all that after use of a gold ornament for a certain period its glittering may not remain as before and its colour may also be faded as the colour coated in the gold ornament is nothing but chemical substance and hence its durability is doubtful.
14.        The complainant has failed to lead clear and consistent evidence to establish that the O.P. No.1 was solely responsible for damage of the original Mina colour coated over the locket of the Mangalsutra when it was put to repair. Since it is the assertion of the complainant that due to mishandling of the ornament by the O.P. No.1, its original colour had been faded, the burden lies on her to prove her assertion. But we are constrained to say that the complainant has failed to discharge her burden.
15.        It appears that after the Mangalsutra was repaired as per requirement of the complainant, it was collected by the complainant's husband on 27.6.12 being satisfied with the repairing work. Thereafter, the complainant along with her husband revisited the showroom of the O.P. No.1 on 10.8.12 after lapse of about 1 month 12 days with the complaint that the Mina colour of the locket had been damaged during the course of repairing. If the Mina colour of the locket got faded due to negligence of the O.P. No.1, the complainant's husband would not have taken delivery of the same without being fully satisfied as to its repairing.
16.        As per terms and condition depicted on the back of the cash memo, it is clearly stipulated that 'ornaments if not approved, can be changed within one week of purchase provided it is unused.' In view of the above position, the complainant was supposed to return the ornament to the O.P. No.1 within a week of taking delivery if the repairing work of the ornament was not approved. However, the O.P. No.1 was good enough to receive the ornament from the complainant for further repair even after the expiry of specified period quoted on the back of the cash memo.
17.        Considering all the materials available on record, it can not be said that the O.Ps were guilty of negligence and adopted unfair trade practice in any manner whatsoever.
18.        Before parting with the case record, we would like to observe that P.C. Chandra Jewellers is one of the reputed jewellers in the country. On the other hand, the complainant is also a Judicial Officer who is playing a significant role in dispensation of administration justice as per powers conferred on her under the law. Indisputedly, the gold locket of the Mangalsutra does not contain much quantity of gold. It has also been admitted by the O.P. that the complainant is their valued customer. So, keeping all these factors in mind, the O.Ps may consider, on whether as a mark of good gesture if the disputed Mina coloured locket of the Mangalsutra of the complainant can be replaced by a new one of similar weight and colour.

19.        In the result, therefore, the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, we make no order as to costs.

20.                A N N O U N C E D

 

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.