DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No. 304/2016
Smt Biro,
W/o Shri Ranjit Singh
R/o House No. 142, Ghoda Mohalla,
Aya Nagar, Near Reliance Tower,
New Delhi-110041
….Complainant
Versus
M/s Prem Narain Sunil Kumar,
(Through its Partner Sunil Kumar)
937/2&3, Ward No.7, Main Market,
Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030.
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 19.09.2016
Date of Order : 16.02.2023
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking Rs.4,30,756/- as compensation on account of deficiency of service along with interest at 18 % per annum.
- Complainant has stated that she ordered OP to prepare certain ornaments to be made of gold such as antique gold set, necklace, ladies and gents ring, chain gold sets, mangalsutra, bangles and other ladies items along with silver jewellery in the month of October, November 2014 and January, February and April 2016.
- It is stated by the complainant that OP assured her that he will prepare all the gold jewellery items in 23 carat and that is why his gold rates are higher than the other jewellery shops in the vicinity. At that point of time, the gold jewellery rate was between Rs.25,000/- to Rs.25,500/- per 10 grams.
- It is further stated by the complainant that she paid the OP from time to time and collected her jewellery as the OP refused to hand over the jewellery without receipt of 100%payment. It is stated by the complainant that she paid Rs.6,42,431/- from October 2014 to April 2016 for the total weight of 247.020 grams including 14.280 grams on account of polishing charges along with the bill on letter head of the OP. The same are annexed as Ex CW-1/A to D.
- It is further stated by the complainant that the act of the OP in not providing proper bills also amounts to deficiency of service though the complainant had requested the OP to provide proper bills as per the purity and weight of the goods.
- It is stated by the complainant that her brother in law's daughter(who had also taken jewellery from them) informed about her the sub-standard purity of gold and silver utensils after her marriage and thereafter they checked the documents provided by the OP on their letter head on which the weight and amount along with caratage was provided and it was found that the OP had prepared all the gold items in 19.42 to 22 carat of gold instead of 23 carats as earlier assured by the OP.
- It was also noticed that extra 11.300 grams of gold for polishing and labour of Rs. 4,830/- was charged from the complainant which also amounts to deficiency of service as per Sales of Goods Act. It is also stated that OP cannot charge for the polishing of gold separately.
- It is further stated by the complainant that she got the purity of her gold checked from IDGL Hallmarking centre and it was revealed that none of the items of gold are of 23 carat as was promised by the OP and the valuation of the gold ornaments were not more than Rs. 3,15,500/- for which the OP had charged Rs. 6,42,431/-. It is also stated that the OP had breached the trust of the complainant and had indulged in unfair trade practice by not providing proper bills of the jewellery item wise and did not deliver 23 carat gold ornaments as was assured by them at the time of booking.
- It is also stated by the complainant that the OP kept on giving lame excuses but later on, in the presence of the brother in law of the complainant, the OP promised to return a sum of Rs 3,26,000/- on account of gold purity and for providing sub-standard carat of gold but till date nothing has been paid by the OP.
- The OP, in their reply have denied all the allegations made by the complainant and have stated that there is no relationship of consumer buyer between the complainant and the OP. It is stated by the OP that the receipts relied on by the complainant are inter-se partner notes and was never issued by them to the complainant. The OP has constantly maintained that they had no dealing with the complainant and the only dealing they had was with the brother-in-law of the complainant. The OP has not specifically denied that any payment has been made to him or that the jewellery supplied to the complainant was not made by them.
The complainant, in her rejoinder have denied the allegations of the OP. Both the complainant as well as the OP have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written arguments. It is seen from the materials filed on record that the alleged receipts filed by the complainant are not inter-se partner notes and have been issued to a consumer, in this case the complainant. It matches with the description provided by the complainant in her complaint and the reports issued by the third-party agency, IDGL sought by the complainant. The OP, in their WS/Reply have not denied the correctness of the reports provided by the third-party agency. The OP has also not denied that payments have been made by the complainant to them. OP has also not denied that the documents to be ordered were also to be of 23 carats. It is also common knowledge that the local jewellers do work on handwritten notes in exchange of cash.
In fact, it is observed from the order sheet dated 20.12.2018 that the OP has offered to get the ornaments of the complainant hallmarked to authenticate them. Therefore, this Commission is of the view that ends of justice would be met by directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-for the difference between the purity of the ornaments supplied by the OP to the complainant and the ornaments that were ordered to be made along with interest @ 5% p.a from the date of filing of complaint till realisation. This amount is to be paid by the OP within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount would carry an interest of 6% p.a after expiry of two months from the knowledge of the order till it is paid. No order as to costs.
Parties to be provided copy of order as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
