DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I U.T. CHANDIGARH

=====

Jagjit Singh Ahluwalia, aged about 70 years son of Gurbaldev Singh Ahluwalia, R/o H.No.415, Type-III, GGSSTP Nuhon Colony P.O. Ghanauli Tehsil & Distt. Ropar.

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

Sant Ram Mangat Ram Jewellers, SCO No.40, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.P.D. GOEL                  PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL            MEMBER

DR.[MRS]MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by:  Complainant in person.

             Sh.Bhupinder Rana, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Rajesh Sood, Counsel for OP.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.       Briefly stated, the complainant purchased one Gold/Diamond Ring from OP vide bill NO.413, dated 24.2.2007, for a sum of Rs.29,000/-, having weight of 10.210 gms.  It is averred that as per the terms & conditions of the bill, the diamond jewellary was returnable at less 20% and exchangeable at less 10%, if accompanied with bill and certificate. 

         It is pleaded that when the complainant visited OP in order to return the said gold/diamond ring, on weighment its weight turned to 7.850 Grams only, instead of 10.210 Grams. When complainant raised protest and requested the OP to refund the full amount, it flatly refused. Hence, this complaint alleging the above act of OP as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.       OP filed reply and admitted the sale of the ring in question. It is also admitted that the ring, when sold, had 10.210 Grams weight.

         OP submitted that whenever any jewellary item is sold by it, it is weighed in the presence of the purchaser. It is also submitted that the complainant never came back with any manufacturing defect or allegation with regard to less weight of the ring for about five years.  The complainant had used the ring for approx. 5 years continuously without any complaint. 

         It is admitted that when complainant visited the OP for sale of the said ring, its weight was found to be 7.850 Grams.  It is averred that besides continuous usage of the ring for five years, the other reasons for less weight could be that of cleaning with acid etc.  It is also averred that the OP is still ready to buy the ring as per terms & condition of the bill. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

3.       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.       We have heard the complainant in person and Proxy Counsel for the OP and have also perused the record.

5.        It was argued by the complainant that he purchased one Gold/Diamond Ring from OP for a sum of Rs.29,000/-, having weight of 10.210 gms.  It was further submitted that when he visited OP to return the gold/diamond ring, per terms and conditions of the bill, its weight turned to 7.850 Grams only instead of 10.210 Grams. The complainant made a request to the OP to refund the full amount but it flatly refused.

6.       The learned Counsel for the OP outrightly conceded at bar that the complainant purchased the ring in question for a sum of Rs.29,000/-, having weight of 10.210 Grams. He further argued that whenever any jewellary item is sold by the OP, it is weighed in the presence of the customer.

         He also argued that the complainant never made any complaint with regard to less weight of the ring for about five years. He had used the ring for approx. 5 years continuously without any complaint, so, due to continuous usage of the ring, the weight turned to 7.850 Grams.  He also submitted that the reason for less weight of the ring could be that of cleaning with acid etc.  It was lastly argued that the OP is still ready to buy the ring as per terms & condition of the bill.

7.       The admitted facts may be noticed thus;

i)       That the complainant purchased the gold/diamond ring for Rs.29,000/- from the OP.

ii)      That at the time of sale, the sale of the ring was 10.210 Grams.

iii)     That when the complainant visited the OP in order to return it, the weight of the ring turned to be 7.850 Grams.

8.       Now, the only point for consideration before this Forum is whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of OP. The answer to this is in the negative.

9.       The complainant has stated in the rejoinder that he had rarely used the ring in routine. He also stated in the rejoinder that he never gave the ring for cleaning and polishing, which decreased the weight of the ring. To support the said contentions, the complainant has not filed an iota of evidence.

10.      The complainant has not denied that he visited the OP in order to return the gold/diamond ring after approximately 5 years. This Fora can take judicial notice that any gold item, if used for approximately 5 years, it will certainly loose its weight due to normal wear and tear. The defence raised by the OP that during the period of 5 years, the gold ring might have been given for cleaning, which had also reduced its weight, cannot be said to be without any merit as any gold item, if used for approximately 5 years, may require cleaning with acid etc.

11.      As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP. With the result, the complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

12.      The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.