COMPLAINT FILED: 29.07.2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 03.11.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> DATED THIS THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1800/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mr. Omprakashj. J.,<br /> S/o Late Sri. M.Jayarama Reddy,<br /> Aged about 31 years,<br /> R/at No.13, 5th Main Road,<br /> 2nd Cross, S.R. Nagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 027.<br /> <br /> In Person<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Shree Sai Gold Palace,<br /> A Partnership Firm, <br /> Having its Showroom at,<br /> No.41, ‘Sai Arcade’, <br /> D.V.G. Road, Basavanagudi,<br /> Bangalore – 560 004.<br /> And represented herein by its Partner.<br /> <br /> And also another office at<br /> Shree Sai Gold Palace,<br /> No.104, DVG Road,<br /> Basavanagudi,<br /> Bangalore – 560 004.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri. H.L. Manjunatha<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> SRI B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay sum of Rs.6,858/- collected as wastage charges and Rs.21,683/- collected as making charges and sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation with interest at 18% p.a. on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 2. The case of the complainant is to be stated in brief is that:<br /> <br /> OP is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling ornaments made of gold, silver, diamonds etc., The complainant along with his relatives visited OP showroom on 11.07.2009 after seeing the advertisement in local daily news paper regarding the gifts and discounts offered at the OP showroom. The complainant purchased jewellery from OP showroom in exchange of old jewellery. The complainant purchased jewellery to a tune of Rs.1,56,554/- after the discounts and OP has further reduced a sum of Rs.98,554/- as the value of the old gold jewellery that was exchanged in its showroom. Complainant paid totally sum of Rs.58,000/- and obtained bill No.G4630. In the said bill OP has given break ups as gross weight, stone weight, stone charges, net weight, making charges etc., In the said bill OP has shown 5.01 grams of gold as wastage for two items of jewellery out of the total 6 items purchased and OP has charged wastage at the rate of Rs.1,369/- per gram which is about Rs.6,858/-. OP has also charged making charges for the remaining jewellery at the gold rate i.e., Rs.1,369/- which works out to be Rs.21,683/-. When the complainant enquired as to why this amount was being debited to him, OP’s executives were evasive and did not give any suitable reply and informed the complainant, that this is the routine practice adopted by all jewellery outlets. It is submitted in manufacture of jewellery, there is no component as wastage, as every gram of gold when melted may be used for making other jewellery. Hence the question of any wastage does not arise. Even assuming that there is wastage material it should have been handed over to the customers. OP has not given the waste gold material to the complainant and also charged very high making charges. Thus OP has indulged in unfair trade practice. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 13.07.2009, OP has not replied for the said notice. Thus the complainant is claiming the above said reliefs on the allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version denying that the complainant purchased jewellery to a tune of Rs.1,56,554/-. It is admitted that the complainant is exchanged old gold for the prevailing rate of the gold on that day. It is stated that on 10.07.2009 complainant visited the show room, selected golden necklace with back chain weighing 27.510 grams. It is admitted that the wastage of gold in making the golden necklace selected amounts to 5.01 grams. The process in preparing necklace or any other ornament as ordered by every customer involves series of procedures handled by expert labours. Several costlier machineries also involved. There will be percentage of loss of gold at every stage which is non recoverable one as the wastage will be in the form of vapours / minute particles which are invisible to the bare eyes. The details as to the loss of gold in preparing the ornaments is furnished stating that every conversion and preparation of 100 grams of ornamental gold, there will be wastage between 24 to 25%. The wastage levied at 5.01 grams by OP is reasonable. It is admitted that an amount of Rs.21,683/- was charged towards making charges. The complainant purchased three pendent (dollars) of high quality finishing work and ear ring (stud) the design and finishing work to the said pendent and stud was of high quality and the same could be prepared by experts alone. Precious stones are fixed in the said pendent. The charges levied Rs.21,683/- consists of wastage of gold, wages paid to the labours, VAT and etc., Considering the design and its make, the charges made are reasonable. The complainant made payment through debit card, on swiping OP has paid Rs.696/- towards charges of the bank, this expenditure is not included the bill. The complainant was given 1 gm of silver free of cost for every gram of gold purchased. The complainant exchanged his old gold at the rate of Rs.1,369/- per gram which was market value prevailing on that day. OP has incurred charges labour, transportation and investment so far as machineries, building rents etc., Many employees are working at the shop whose salaries are normally high. OP has not charged anything on the customer with regard to investment and expenses. OP has only charged towards irrecoverable gold while making ornaments and wages paid to labours. It is incumbent on the part of the every customer to pay the same. The customer approaches the maker with a definite demand of design, high quality making with 916 hallmark. The maker has to bear the loss of gold in getting the ornaments 916 hallmarked. At the show room the prices are fixed, the customer will be made known about the rate and the charges of its choice of ornament. The customer as liberty to verify the same and in the event of his dissatisfaction, he can cancel the order for which OP is not in the habit of levying charges. In fact all the rules and regulations are printed on the overleaf of each bill and the customer only after going through the bill puts signature thereby accepting the terms and conditions. The process of preparing ornamental gold is a skilled job and involves lot of procedures handled expert labours. The wages of labours are on higher side and they are to be maintained in order to give high fine quality to the ornaments. OP has not levied high wastage of gold or high making charges. OP has given discount of Rs.4,745/- and this discount is purely discretionary of the maker. There is no deficiency of service, OP has not adopted a deceptive practice in order to enrich himself as alleged by the complainant. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. The partner of the OP filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version and produced documents. <br /> <br /> 6. Both the parties filed written arguments. Arguments of OP side heard, written arguments of complainant taken into consideration, points for consideration: <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved the<br /> deficiency in service on the part of the <br /> OP? <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for<br /> the relief’s claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 7. We record over findings on the above points: <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Negative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Negative. <br /> <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order. <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 8. At the out set it is not at dispute that the complainant visited the OPs show room on 11.07.2009 and purchased jewellery in exchange of his old jewellery. The Jewellery purchased was readymade jewellery which was displayed at the counters of the OP show room. The cash bill issued by OP with respect to the said transaction reveals that the total cost of the jewellery was Rs.1,56,554/- after the discounts that was given. Further OP has reduced sum of Rs.98,554/- towards the value of the old gold jewellery that was exchanged. OP has given break ups for the entire bill. In the bill the wastage has been shown 5.01 grams of gold as wastage of two items of jewellery out of total six items purchased. The wastage at the rate of Rs.1,369/- per gram which is about Rs.6,858/- is shown. Apart from that OP has charged making charges for the remaining jewellery at the prevailing market rate i.e., at Rs.1,369/- per gram which works out Rs.21,683/-. <br /> <br /> 9. The main grievances of the complainant is in the manufacturer of jewellery, there is no component as wastage, as every gram of gold when melted may be used for making other jewellery. Hence the question of wastage does not arise. Further the contention is that even if there is wastage of gold in making of jewellery, that wastage material should have been handed over to the customer. In this case though OP has charged the complainant for wastage equalant to gold price and has not given the wastage gold material, thus it is contended, OP has indulged in unfair trade practice. As per the defence version and affidavit evidence of the OP, the process in preparing necklace or any other ornaments involves series of procedures handled by expert labours. There will be percentage of loss of gold at every stage which is a non irrecoverable one as the wastage will be in the form of vapours / minute particles which are invisible to the bare eyes. In the version OP has clearly furnished the details of the process involved in preparing the gold ornaments and the loss of gold. In preparation of 100 grams of ornamental gold there will be wastage between 24 to 25%. In our view in the absence of any expert opinion to the effect that there will be no wastage of gold in preparing the gold ornaments, we have to accept the defence version that in the process involved in preparing the gold ornaments there would be some percentage of loss of gold as wastage in the form of vapours / minute particles which are invisible to the bare eyes. Thus we are unable to accept the contention of the complainant that there is no component as wastage, as every gram of gold when melted may be used for making other jewellery.<br /> <br /> 10. The complainant has produced the bills of other showroom for having purchased the jewellery to show that the other showroom charged around 10% as wastage inclusive of making charges. OP has produced the bill from the said showroom where in the wastage was fixed at 22% in respect of the jewellery purchased by one of its employee. All the three bills are issued by Nikhaar Jems and Jewellery. From these bills it becomes clear that the wastage and making charges in respect of the jewellery varies from 10% to 22%. It all depends on the design of the jewellery and the workmanship involved while considering the wastage. There is no merit in the contention of the complainant that when the Nikhaar Jems and Jewellery has charged 10% as wastage charges inclusive of making charges, the same percentage should have been charged by OP. The jewellery purchased from OP i.e., necklace with back chain was produced before the Forum on 12.01.2009. We have seen the ornaments, considering design and the workmanship involved OP is justified in charging wastage as shown in the bill. The complainant has not produced the ornaments purchased from Nikhaar Jems and Jewellery for comparing the same with the jewellery purchased from OP. It is stated by the complainant that the said jewelleries are gifted to his relatives; the same are not available with him. Even in the print out from internet taken out and produced by the complainant reveals that the gold gets wasted in the manufacturer of a jewellery item. It depends on the jewellery item. For the pure gold items the wastage is around 6 to 8%, whereas for a diamond jewellery it goes upto 15% of pure gold. Thus it becomes clear that even as per this print out there would be some wastage in preparing the gold ornaments. However the percentage of wastage depends on the design of the ornaments. There is no any statue or law fixing the percentage of loss of gold in preparing each item of jewellery. <br /> <br /> 11. In the legal notice issued, the complainant has claimed for refund sum of Rs.6,858/- collected by OP as wastage charges. There was no any grievances with regard to making charges collected by OP. In the complaint, the complainant is claiming for recovery of the making charges. The charges of Rs.21,683/- charged towards item No.1 to 4 of the bill is inclusive of wastage of gold, wages paid to the labours. The complainant has purchased three pendents (dollars) of high finishing work and a ear ring (stud). OP claims that the design and finishing work to the said items were of high quality and can be prepared only by experts. Precious stones were fixed on the said pendents. In view the workmanship involved in preparing the pendents and ear ring, precious stones fixed on the pendents OP has charged Rs.21,683/-. The complainant after knowing all the details of wastage and labour charges purchased the ornaments by paying the amount. When there is no any law fixing the labour charges for the items of golden jewellery to be prepared it cannot be said that the labour charges collected by OP is unreasonable. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In view of the same the complainant is not entitled for the any reliefs claimed. The complaint is devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. Considering the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 3rd day of November 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> Snm:<br />