Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/293/2021

Shubham Bhalla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saraf The Jeweller - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Aman Singla

21 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	293/2021
Date of Institution	:	11.05.2021
Date of Decision	:	21.04.2022

 

                     

            

 

Shubham Bhalla s/o Sh.Chander Mohan Bhalla, House No.237, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh.

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

Saraf The Jeweller, SCO No.125-126, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017 through its Authorized Representative.

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:
	SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Aman Singla, Adv. for the complainant
	OP exparte.

 

   

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.     Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that he purchased a gold ring from the OP vide invoice dated 01.01.2021 for Rs.41,437/- on which there was a discount of Rs.18,000/-.  There was a difference in size in respect of the finger chosen by him, which was agreed to be set right by the OP after its purchase and, therefore, he handed over the ring to the OP to set right as per his finger size against receipt. On 04.01.2021 when he collected the ring from the OP, he found some defects/dents and, therefore, the same was again handed over to the OP for removal of the defects. On 05.01.2021, he went to the OP to collect the ring but he found the same dents and the same were not removed and rather the employees of the OP misbehaved with him and forced him to take the delivery of the ring. According to the complainant, the ring is suffering from some manufacturing defect. It has further been averred that he took the delivery of the ring under protest against receipt dated 01.01.2021. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.     We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
3.     From the averments made in the complaint and the documents on record, it is clear that the complainant has sought the refund of the price of the ring from the OP by alleging that there are certain dents/defects in the ring. However, the bald averments of the complainant, without there being any corroborative proof, regarding the dents/defects in the ring are not suffice to allow the complaint. Thus, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same deserves to be dismissed.
4.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
5.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced 21/04/2022
	Sd/- (PRITI MALHOTRA) PRESIDING MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER