Delhi

North East

CC/256/2016

VARDAN NATH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI TIRUPATI BALAJI JEWELERS - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 256/16

 

In the matter of:

 

 

Vardan Nath S/o Sh. Chandrabhan

R/o B-133, West Nathu Colony, Shahdara, Delhi-110093

 

 

Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

 

 

 

New Shri Tirupati Balaji Jewelers

D-750, Gali No. 4, Ashok Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110093

 

 

Opposite Parties

 

           

               DATE OF INSTITUTION:

        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:

              DATE OF DECISION      :

03.10.2016

23.01.2018

25.01.2018

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

ORDER

  1. Shri Vardan Nath S/o Shri Chandrabhan R/o B-133, West Nathu Colony Shahdara, Delhi 110093 the complainant herein filed a complaint dated 03.10.2016 against New Shri Tirupati Balaji Jewelers Prop. Neeraj Verma, D-750, Gali No. 4, Ashok Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi 110093, the OP herein wherein the complainant stated that he had purchased one pair of silver payal / anklet and one pair of silver chutki / toe ring amounting to Rs. 2,050/- and Rs. 340/- respectively vide bill no. 864 dated 06.10.2014. The complainant states that the toe ring was given by him to one of his relatives. However, in the six months of purchase the jewellery started turning black and flat light in weight too. Whereas the said items were assured to the complainant to be of pure silver by the OP. The complainant went to the OP with this complaint and asked for replacement which was assured to be got done by OP within a week despite which it was not replaced even on several visits to the OP by complainant and thereafter the OP started misbehaving with the complainant and threaten him of serious consequences on visiting his shop again by Shri Neeraj Verma shop owner of the OP.
  2. The complainant has pleaded that the OP has cheated him with fake items, which are lighter as well as fake and as such by this present complaint has prayed this Forum for directions to OP to replace item / refund of cost of items, a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 10,000/-  for mental agony and Rs. 5000/- for legal expenses.
  3. A notice u/s 13 CPA, 1986 dated 22.10.2016 was issued to above said OP for appearance in this Forum on 23.11.2016 but he didn’t appear despite service on 27.10.2016 as per the track report. He was again provided another opportunity to appear on 21.12.2016 but he did not appear and as such, he was proceeded against ex parte.
  4. The ex parte affidavit of evidence was filed by complainant on 20.01.2017 and written arguments were filed on 23.01.2018.
  5. The property in dispute (payal/ payjeb) was also submitted to this Forum as case property on 23.01.2018.
  6. We have examined the property in dispute (Payal/ payjeb) and found that it is totally blackened and evidently appears to be spurious and of a very inferior quality.
  7. Keeping in view all the above factors, we find that the complainant has established his contention that he was given fake items as past off as that genuine silver and the OP didn’t appear in this Forum to rebute this claim of the complainant. Further the replacement of items was not done despite several visits of the complainant to the OP as stated by him.
  8. Thereafter, we hold that the OP is guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and is therefore, liable to replace the above item payal/ anklet with a pair of genuine silver payal with certificate of authenticity within a period of 30 days of the issue of this order, failing which he shall refund the total cost of Rs. 2,050/- to the complainant with interest @9% from the date of filing his complaint in this Forum. In addition to the above, the OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for mental agony faced by the complainant and Rs. 1,000/- towards legal expenses incurred by him.
  9. Let the order be complied within 30 days from receipt of copy of this order. 
  10.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
  11.   File be consigned to record room.
  12.   Announced on  25.01.2018   

 

 

(N.K. Sharma)

     President

 

(Sonica Mehrotra)

Member

 

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.