SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> This is a complaint seeking to realize excess prize collected from the complainant compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complainant can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The opp.party is a manufacturer and dealer in Gold ornaments and carrying on business under the name and style Thankamalika Jewellery at Poovattoor, Kottarkkara, Kollam. The complainant purchased Gold ornaments from the opp.party’s shop on 22.5.2003 for Rs.72,477.60 as per the bill NO.26 dated 22.5.2003 and on 24.5.2003 for Rs.1.12,589.60 as per sales bill No.28 dated 24.5.2003. for giving presentation to his daughter in connection with her marriage . The opp.party represented that the said gold ornaments are of 916 purity and made him believe the same and accordingly the complainant paid the price at the rate of Rs.530/- per gram, the then prevailing market price per gram for 22 carat gold. The opp.party has charged an additional cost of 18% over and above the said market price by way of value addition, while the prevailing market practice is only to charge 8 to 10% . Within few weeks of sale, . the glittering of the said ornaments faded and this has raised serious doubt about the promised quality of the ornaments. Thereupon expert opinion was sought and the expert opined that the gold is of only 20 ct. which has caused not only financial loss but also loss of face, shame, tension and mental agony to the complainant as well as his daughter who is the beneficiary before her inlaws. Though the opp.party agreed to make good the loss he did not comply with his promise. Thereupon the complainant issued an Advocate notice on 17.3.2004 for which the opp.party sent a reply denying to have committed any unfair trade practice. The complainant thereupon contacted Cochin Assay Co. Pvt. Ltd an ISO9001 Company recognized by Bureau of Indian Standards and got the gold examined by them on fire assay method which shows that the gold is only 839.9 [20 ct] purity. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opp.party filed a version contendin g as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in low or on facts. The complainant has no cause of action. The gold ornaments claimed to be purchased from the opp.party and the bills there of does not correspond each other. These were issued at the requests of the complainant for securing certain concession from some authorities. The complainant has approached the opp.party for purchasing certain gold ornaments and after agreeing quality and purity of the gold., the complainant has purchased certain gold ornaments at the prevailing market rate. There is no unfair trade practice on the side of the opp.party. The value addition realized by the opp.party is the prevailing rate. The value addition is lawful and the opp.party realized only a lesser amount than the prevailing market value. The averments in para 7 of the complaint are denied. The gold ornaments sold by the opp.party were pure gold and the complainant was satisfied of it’s purity. The opp.party never said that the gold ornaments supplied by him are of inferior quality. . The opp.party received an advocate notice of the complainant for which he has issued a reply. When the gold ornaments can be sent for testing purity through the Forum the conduct of the complainant in sending the same to a Private laboratory is to be explained by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether there any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party?<br /> 2. Reliefs and costs.<br /> For the complainant PW.1 is and 2 are examined. Ext. P1 to P6 are marked<br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined.<br /> <br /> Points:<br /> <br /> As a matter of fact there is no dispute that the complainant has purchased certain gold ornaments from the shop of the opp.party. DW.1 has admitted in cross examination that the complainant purchased gold ornaments from his shop and Ext.P1 and P2 bills are issued to the complainant by him and he identified Ext.P1 and P2. Now the case of the complainant is that the opp.party sold him gold ornaments having lesser purity and collected prize as if they are ornaments having higher caractage which amounts to unfair trade practice on the side of the opp.party.<br /> <br /> DW.1 in cross examination admitted that he has collected the price of the gold ornaments sold to the complainant at the rate of Rs.530/- per gram which was the prevailing market rate at the time of purchase for 22 carat gold. DW.1 further admitted Ext.P1, P2 YedlgA 530/- goe Yzlajrk dn]l]julnk ijhilbbjufk DW.1 admitted that he has collected the value of 22ct gold after selling 20ct.” 20ct cIGn\nA ijMj}k 22ct sRy ijhulnk P1, P2 YedlgA TOml]juj}kxxfk ? Ans. Lsf In further cross examination he would assert that BlR complainant rk rHdjufk 20 ct sRy cIGn\nA alnk However in the reply notice Ext.P4 it is stated that the gold ornaments sold to the complainant were of 22ct.<br /> <br /> It is to be noted that in almost all gold ornaments sold to the complainant by the opp.party except one it is noted 20/22. DW.1 admitted in cross examination that such a marketing is made without any basis and that there is no rule authorizing such marketing. He would admit in further cross examination that the value of 20 ct gold is lesser than that of 22ct gold. So it is obvious that DW.1 has sold gold ornaments to the complainant as per the P1 and P2 having caratage of 20 and collected the price of 22ct gold which is nothing but unfair trade practice.<br /> <br /> PW.2 is the Asst. Controller, Legal Metrology, Kollam. He has stated that there is no provision in any rule for recording caratage value as 22/20 in the gold ornaments. He would further state that the caratage must be specific. Ext. X1 clearly shows that the gold ornaments purchased by the complainant from the opp.party are having 20ct purity.<br /> <br /> DW.1 has stated in cross examination that when gold ornaments are manufactured using 22ct gold its purity would be reduced to 20ct and for compensating this they are collecting value addition. In this case also the opp.party has collected value addition from the complainant is evident from Ext.P1 and P2. When value addition is collected the complainant is entitled to get 22ct gold ornaments. When the gold ornaments sold by DW.1 to the complainant were charged at the rate of Rs.530/- per gram and after collecting value addition of the gold ornaments actually sold where of 20ct, the conduct of the opp.party. amounts to unfair trade practice.<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that he has purchased gold ornaments from the opp.party for giving them to his daughter in connection with her marriage, which is not disputed by the opp.party also. According to the complainant after 2 months after marriage the gold ornaments faded which caused mental agony and humiliation to himself and his daughter from her inlaws. DW.1 has admitted in cross examination at page 2 that the 20ct. gold ornaments may loose polish and glittering. It goes without saying that when the gold ornaments given at the time of marriage to the daughter of the complainant fades it naturally will cause mental agony and humiliation for which the complainant is entitled to get compensation. We have already found that there is unfair trade practice on the side of the opp.party. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opp.party to pay Rs.14,000/- being the loss due to supply of 20ct gold instead of 22ct gold with interest @ 9% per annum from 22.5.2003, Rs.5,000/- as compensation, Rs.1,000/- towards costs of testing the gold and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this complaint.. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1 – Sasidharan<br /> PW.2. – Radhakrishna Pillai<br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Bill dated 22.5.2003<br /> P2. Bill dated 24.5.2003<br /> P3. – Copy of Advocate notice<br /> P4. – Reply notice<br /> P5. – Certificate Assay Co. Pvt. Ltd., dated 15.5.2004<br /> X1. – Gold purity test report<br />