BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

C.C.No.294/2018     Filed on 09.08.2018

ORDER DATED: 29.01.2021

Complainant:

(Party in person)

Opposite parties:

This C.C having been heard on 04.01.2021, the commission on 29.01.2021 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR.,  MEMBER:

          The complainant has joined the gold instalment scheme from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month.  At the time of Rs.60,000/- the opposite party has demanded the complainant to take an ornament for an amount of Rs.70,000/- as per the condition.  Then the complainant has selected a locket and asked them to select a suitable chain for wearing the locket.  On 17.05.2015 the complainant has bought a chain to the locket from the opposite party.  But the weight of the chain was very low and they assured that the chain is lasting and suitable for the locket.  At that time the complainant had no doubt of the quality of the chain.  On 2017 April the chain was broken in pieces.  Then the complainant took the chain to the opposite party and they had connected the broken piece and put the locket with the chain.  The complainant had not wear the chain and locket daily and used the chain with locket only occasionally.  On 2018 March the complainant went to a tour at Kozhikode beach.  On return she saw the chain was broken and the locket was lost.  She enquired the locket in different places of beach.  But she could not find the locket.  The complainant had returned home very sad.

          On 2018 the complainant went to opposite party for repairing the broken chain and told them about the lost of locket at beach.  Thereafter the complainant has used the chain without locket.  Again the chain was broken after one week.  The complainant went to the shop and asked them why the chain was broken.  Then the opposite party had taken another set of chain and told that the locket is not used to this nice chain and not used for rough use.  But the complainant has now used the chain without locket and the chain was broken several times.  Moreover the opposite party had stated that the chain is not good as to use this locket and the complainant had not used the chain with locket.  The opposite party had taken the chain and pulled the chain apart and thereby stretching it.  Now the chain was broken into two pieces.  The acts of the opposite party amounts to much mental agony.  Hence the complaint.

          After accepting the notice the opposite party had not filed version.  Hence the opposite party set exparte.

The complainant filed chief affidavit and documents.  Ext. P1 and P2 marked.

Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?

Issues 1 & 2

We perused relevant documents on record.  Ext.P1 dated 17.05.2015 shows that the complainant had purchased diamond locket for an amount of Rs.56,546/- and chain for an amount of Rs.18,950/-.  Ext.P1 shows that the complainant had purchased ornaments for an amount of Rs.70,000/- from the opposite party.  No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite party.  According to the complainant lost the locket and broken the chain.  As per Ext.P1 the price of the locket was Rs.56,546/-.  The complainant stated that the chain was broken in several times and not used.  According to the complainant the chain is selected for locket by the opposite party at the time of purchase of locket.  Moreover, the chain was broken and locket was lost at Kozhikode beach.  The complainant stated that the chain was selected by the opposite party and she had lost her diamond locket.  No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite party.  In Ext.P1 the price of the diamond locket was Rs.56,546/-.  In the gold instalment scheme the complainant had paid Rs.60,000/-.  The locket was lost and so she could not prove the locket is not suitable to wear with the chain.  The acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.

In the result, complaint is allowed.  We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) as compensation and Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) as cost to the complainant.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 29^th day of January, 2021.

SL

C.C.No.294/2018

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS

5. COURT EXHIBITS

                                                                                                                             Sd/-                 

PRESIDENT

SL