Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/390/2019

Salinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ram Sawroop Jawellers - Opp.Party(s)

Subhash Chander

02 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.                   

Complaint Case No.390 of 2019.

Date of Instt.:10.09.2019.

Date of Decision: 02.03.2023

Salinder son of Rameshwar resident of village Dhanger, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

...Complainant

                    Versus

Ram Sarup Jewelers Shop No.28, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

 

          ...Opposite Party.

 

          Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Present:       Sh.S.C.Bhadu, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.S.C.Jangu, Advocate for OP.

                  

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                                              SH.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                  

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act).

2.                Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant got prepared gold ornaments i.e. ring and a pendant (Tewta and Anguthi) from the Op in the month of February 2017. The total weight of purchased gold was 26.700 gms. and the fixed rate was Rs.29350/- per gm. It has been further averred that at the time of preparing the ornaments, the Op had assured that the ornaments would be Hallmark as the rate has been fixed keeping in view the Hallmark standard.  The complainant made the payment of Rs.18915/- in cash out of the total amount i.e. Rs.78,865/- and the balance amount was paid through cheque amounting to Rs.59950/- dated 13.02.2017.  Thereafter, the complainant was handedover the ornaments with assurance that the same were of Hallmark standard. It has been further averred that in the month of July, 2019, the complainant was in need of money, therefore, he approached the bank for taking loan on the gold items but there he came to know that the ring was not of Hallmark standard. After that the complainant visited the Op and requested for either to return the money or to make the gold in Hallmark standard but the Op did not pay any heed. The complainant got served legal notice upon the Op but despite that it did not fetch any yield. The act and conduct of the OP is clearly amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence, this complaint.

3.                The OP appeared and filed written statement to the complaint wherein several preliminary objections such as maintainability, cause of action, concealment of material facts and locus standi etc. have been taken.  It has been further submitted that only an amount of Rs.59950/- was paid through cheque dated 13.02.2017 out of the total amount and rest of the amount i.e. Rs.18195/- has not been paid till today. The present complaint has been filed just to extract money from the answering Op with ulterior motive. Other contentions have been controvered and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                No evidence has been led on behalf of the complainant despite availing ample opportunities and therefore, the evidence of the complainant was closed by the court order on 17.05.2022.  On the other hand, the Op has tendered affidavit Annexure RW1/A and document Annexure R1. Then the evidence of the Op was closed.

5.                Final arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties have been heard and the case file has also been perused minutely.

6.                Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the controversy involved in the instant case cannot be adjudicated in summarily manner and it requires elaborate and voluminous evidence to reach at any conclusion.

7.                Hence, in view of above discussion, coupled with factual as-well- as legal position qua this case, we are of the considered view that in the present complaint, both the parties have failed to lead sufficient/satisfactory evidence on record to reach at any final conclusion, qua this matter. Further, in order to resolve the controversy involved in this matter, we are of the considered view that elaborate evidence is required in this case. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby disposed of with a liberty to the complainant to approach appropriate Court/ authority concerned, if so advised. In that eventuality, the period of litigation before this Commission shall not be counted towards the period of limitation for approaching appropriate court or authority concerned, as the case may be.  Exemption of time spent before this Commission is granted  in terms of the  judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India given in the case titled as “Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute  (1995) 3 SCC page 583.  In the given facts and circumstances of this case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, free of cost, as per rules. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties. The case file be consigned to record room, as per rules, after necessary compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission.                                                           Dated:02.03.2023

                                                                                                        

         

 

          (K.S.Nirania)                  (Harisha Mehta)                 (Rajbir Singh)                       Member                              Member                              President