JUDGEMENT
The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Smt. MunmunHazra Resident of SubhaspallyPO:Jhaljhalia,P.S. English Bazar, Dist. Malda. u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the same petition of complaint was registered before this Forum as Complaint Case No. 29/2017.
The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that on 5th day of November, 2016 the complainant MunmunHazra purchased to golden ornaments from G.D. Guinea House, Malda. After purchase of the ornament the complainant kept those in the Almirah. On 13th May, 2017 when the complainant took out the ornaments from the Almirah to wear the ornaments at that time she noticed some black spots in the ‘Mangal Sutra’. The price of the ‘Mangal Sutra’ was Rs. 23,285/- (Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Five Only). It is to be mentioned that the complainant purchased two ornaments one is ‘Mangal Sutra’ and another is ‘Jhumka’. Total valuation of those ornaments were Rs. 47,728/-(Rupees Forty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Eight Only).
After noticing the black spot in the ‘Mangal Sutra’ the complainant approached the O.P. and requested to repair the ‘Mangal Sutra’. After several times and after exchange of dialogues between the complainant and the O.P. ultimately agreed to repair the said ‘Mangal Sutra’. On 15/05/2017 at the time of receiving ‘Mangal Sutra’ by the complainant it was noticed by the complainant that the gold balls attached with the ornament were damaged. At the initial stage the O.P. was reluctant to accept the same fact that the gold balls were damaged by them. Later on they accepted their fault and agreed to repair those damaged parts. On 17/05/2017 the complainant along with her husband went to the showroom and requested the O.Ps to return the ‘Mangal Sutra’ but the O.Ps delayed in delivery of ‘Mangal Sutra’ on different pretext. The complainant and husband and his friend Bapi Pal went to the showroom on 29/05/2017 and requested the O.Ps to return the ornaments. But the O.Ps and their men manhandling the complainant and abusing the complainant and her husband and at that time they stated that they will not return the ornament and the complainant is a liberty to take any steps.
Finding no other alternatives the complainant lodged a written complaint before the English Bazar Police Station on 30/05/2017. Ultimately, no fruitful result was came out. Therefore, the complainant has come to this Forum to redress her claim.
The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.Ps contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in law and facts. There is no cause of action to file the case against the O.Ps. The complainant is vague and indefinite.
The further defense case is that the O.Ps have admitted that the complainant purchased the ‘Mangal Sutra’ on 05/11/2016. The further defense is that the O.P. repaired the ‘Mangal Sutra’ as complained by the complainant. Thereafter, again the complainant requested to repair the gold balls but the complainant did not take delivery of the said ‘Mangal Sutra’.
The further definite defense case is that the O.P. is a businessman and always try to satisfy his customer. So the question of hurling, abuses to the complainant is false. There was no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. The further defense case is that the O.P. told the complainant to return the price of the ornament as well as if she wants to replace the ornament by a new one she can take the same but the complainant did not receive the amount and left the showroom by creating non-stop nuiscense by shouting. So considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
In order to prove the case the complainant was herself examined as P.W.-1. One Bapi Pal has examined as P.W-2. During trial the complainant has proved and marked the document as Ext. 1 and 2. On the other hand the O.P. has examined Sudarshan Kr. Das as O.P.W-1 and Somnath Das as O.P.W.-2.
Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not.
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
There is no dispute that the complainant purchased the ‘Mangal Sutra’ from the showroom of O.P. Such fact has well established by the complainant by filing cash memo which has been marked Ext.-2 from which it is found that the complainant purchased ‘Mangal Sutra’ on 05/11/2016 along with another golden ornament. Moreover, the fact of purchasing golden ornament has been admitted by the O.P. in the W/V. As because in the W/V the O.P. has stated that the O.P. is ready to return the price of the ornament to the complainant or agreeable to replace by a new one. So the fact of purchasing ‘Mangal Sutra’ has been well established. Now the question comes whether there was any defect in the ‘Mangal Sutra’ or not. At the time of argument, the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant submitted that as there was a defect in the ‘Mangal Sutra’ this is why the complainant deposited it for repairing to the O.P. and such fact of the repair has been well established on the reverse of the cash memo that the Mangal Sutra has been given to the O.P. for repairing. So it is also well established that there was a defect in the ‘Mangal Sutra’. But the main dispute arose when the complainant went to the showroom for taking delivery of the ‘Mangal Sutra’ was good. Till that time the ‘Mangal Sutra’ is in custody of the O.P. It is not understood why the O.P. did not handover the ‘Mangal Sutra’ after repairing to the complainant.
The Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. submitted that the O.P. was always agreeable to refund the price of the ‘Mangal Sutra’ or want to replace the same. But the complainant did not receive the Mangal Sutra. But such statement by the O.P. is not at all believable as because the O.P. did not tender the amount,only by filing the petition stating that they are ready to tender the amount. So the argument raised by the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. is not believable. Moreover, the ‘Mangal Sutra’ is a sacred and pious material of a married Hindu woman. The main purpose of wearing ‘Mangal Sutra’ in the case of married Hindu woman to show respect to her husband as well as in the society. Due to the latches of the O.P. and also keeping it in their custody for a long time the complainant was deprived of using the sacred and pious ‘Mangal Sutra’ for which the complainant has suffered a mental loss and agony.
So on considering the facts and circumstances the complainant is able to prove her case that it is a sheer negligence of duty on the part of the O.Ps.
C.F. paid is correct.
Hence, ordered that
the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2.
The complainant gets an order for replacement of ‘Mangal Sutra’ The O.P. is directed to replace the ‘Mangal Sutra’ as a new one subject to the satisfaction of the complainant on the date of final order of the purity of golden ornament 22/22 carat with hallmark or O.Ps are directed to refund the price of the ‘Mangal Sutra’ on the date of final order on the basis of purity of gold 22/22 carat. Besides that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 10,000(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation for mental pain and agony as due to latches of the O.P. the complainant was deprived of using the sacred and pious ‘Mangal Sutra’ Beside that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Only) as litigation cost.
The O.Ps are directed to carry out the order within 1 month from the date of order failing which the O.P. will pay interest @ 5% p.a. over the awarded money from the date of filing of this case i.e. 12/06/2017 and the complainant will be at liberty to put the decree in execution.
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the Complainant/O.P free of cost on proper application.
