Delhi

East Delhi

CC/238/2013

G.S. BHATIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RANGILA JEWELERS - Opp.Party(s)

30 Apr 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 238/13

 

Shri G.S. Bhatia

S/o Shri Gurcharan Singh Bhatia

R/o B-2, S-1, Chander nagar

Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP                                                          ….Complainant

Vs.

Rangila Jewellers

Laxmi Palace, Anaz Mandi

Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032                                                             ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 19.03.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 30.01.2018

Judgment Passed on: 31.01.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            The present complaint has been filed by Shri G.S. Bhatia against Rangila Jewellers (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in services.    

 

2.         Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased four gold bangles of total weight of 41.710 gms. of 23 carat for a sum of Rs. 39,000/- on 24.09.2006 from OP.  There was a chit of Rs. 12,000/- in favour of the complainant, which was to be paid by OP.  The amount of    Rs. 12,000/- was deducted from the total amount of Rs. 39,000/-.  OP issued rough estimate/bill dated 24.09.2006 for the same despite the fact that the complainant demanded for a proper bill with TIN number.

            It was stated that after purchase of 6 months, said gold bangles developed cracks and complaint was lodged with OP.  OP repaired the bangles and assured that bangles would not crack in future.  After some time, cracks resurfaced again and the same were repaired with assurance, but cracks continued to develop after use.

            It was further stated that the complainant got tested the bangles with Stuti Hallmarking Centre, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, recognized by Bureau of Indian Standards vide fitness report no. 10 dated 06.02.2013 in which total gold content found was 762.5 which was 18 carat and the total weight per bangle was less by 0.101gm.. 

            It was stated that OP had promised the complainant at the time of purchase that no deduction would be done if they returned the gold bangles to him, but at the time of returning, OP started demanding 25% deduction on the total weight in case of return and otherwise pressurized the complainant to purchase other gold ornaments against those bangles.  Complainant refused to accept their demand as he had lost faith in the quality of products sold by OP.  After refusal, OP asked the complainant to show the quotation/bill and on being shown the same, OP put a cross with red pen and told that complainant had no option, but to accept their demand. 

            Legal notice dated 06.10.2012 was also sent by the complainant which was not replied.  Thus, the complainant has filed his complaint praying for directions to OP to refund the amount of the said total weight of gold bangles as per market rate of gold with interest @ 18% p.m. till realization; compensation of Rs. 30,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and inconvenience and Rs. 15,000/- expenses of legal proceedings.

            The complainant has annexed copy of bill dated 24.09.2006, legal notice alongwith postal receipts and lab test report of gold bangle alongwith complaint. 

 

3.           OP filed their reply upon service of notice, wherein they took several pleas in their defence such as complaint was barred by limitation; the complainant never purchased gold from OP and they did not receive any legal notice.  Other facts have also been denied.   

 

4.         Rejoinder to WS was filed by the complainant, where it was stated that the cause of action was continuous, as the complainant had approached OP several times for repairs.  It was stated that as a matter of practice, OP used to sell gold ornaments on rough estimates and also issued guarantee certificates of the same.  It was stated that the purity of 23 carat was engraved on the bangles.  Rest of the contents of WS have been denied and those of the complaint have been reiterated.    

 

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself, who has deposed on affidavit. He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as rough estimate/bill dated 24.09.2006 (Ex.CW1/A), bill/rough estimate dated 02.03.2006 (Ex.CW1/B), two guarantee certificates issues by OP (Ex.CW1/C-1 and 1/C-2), pamphlet of shop of OP (Ex.CW1/D) and rough estimate dated 02.08.2009 (Ex.CW1/E), copy of bank statement (Ex.CW1/F colly.), photograph of bangles (Ex.CW1/G colly.), Lab testing report (Ex.CW1/H colly.) and legal notice alongwith its postal receipts (Ex.CW1/J and 1/J-1).    

            OP examined Shri Navneet, Manager of OP, who has also deposed on affidavit and has narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement. 

 

6.         We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  The complainant has alleged that the bangles sold by OP were of 18 carat instead of 23 carat.  Firstly, deciding on the preliminary objection of OP regarding limitations, it is stated that “if any” goods were bought by the complainant that was in 24.09.2006 and the date of institution of present complaint is 19.03.2013, hence, it is barred by limitation. Now, if we take a look at the Ex.CW1/H (colly.) i.e. lab test report which is dated 06.02.2013, it is when the complainant came to know the exact purity of the gold.  It is the first time when the complainant came to know about the exact purity of bangle was 06.02.2013, therefore, the present complaint is within the period of limitation as date of institution is 19.03.2013.

            Secondly, the plea taken by OP that the said bangles were not sold by them, the complainant had only taken rough estimate, it seems to be a moonshine defence as complainant has placed on record Ex.CW1/B and Ex.CW1/C-1 and Ex.CW1/C-2 and rough estimate as Ex.CW1/E to Ex.CW1/F, pertaining to other transactions between OP and family members of the complainant to prove that as a matter of practice, OP used to sell the gold ornaments on rough estimates.  Thus, the complainant has been successful in proving his contention. 

            Comparison of Ex.CW1/A (estimate/bill) and Ex.CW1/H (colly.) – as per which the purity is 23 carat and in lab test purity is 18.32 carat which is less than 23 carat.  Thus, the complainant has successfully proved that the purity of bangles sold by OP was less than what was charged and promised.  However, the lab test report pertains to only one bangle so, relief can be granted with respect to that one bangle only, because gold ornaments are hand crafted/handmade and each piece may vary in purity, so it cannot be considered as a sample from the lot of four bangles. 

            Hence, we partly allow the present complaint and direct OP to refund the cost of one bangle i.e. Rs. 9,750/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of institution of complaint till realization.  We also award Rs. 7,500/- as compensation on account of mental harassment, inclusive of litigation expenses.  The order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of order.        

            Copy of the order be supplied to both the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President