Consumer Complaint No. 138 of 2016

Date of filing: 10.8.2016                                                                Date of disposal: 17.8.2016

Complainant:               Miss Rita Kesh, Karangpara, Durgapur – 713 201, District: Burdwan (W.B.).

-V E R S U S-

Opposite Party:            Sri Biswanath Singha, Proprietor of Joy Bijoy Jewellers, A.C. Market Hattala Road, Durgapur – 713 201, District: Burdwan (W.B.).

Present:      Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.

                        Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.

           Hon’ble Member:  Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.

Appeared for the Complainant:      Ld. Advocate, Aniruddha Bhatacharya.

Order No. 02, Dated: 17.8.2016

Today is fixed for admission hearing of this complaint. The ld. Counsel for the complainant is present by filing hazira. We have taken up the hearing on the point of admissibility of the complaint.

It is started in the petition of complaint that this complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the Op as the OP has provided her remodeled golden ornaments which is lesser carat than the old ornaments given to the OP for remodeling of the ornaments.

The complainant on 14.5.2014 submitted one pair of bangles carrying weight of 45.100 gm whose market value was Rs. 28,880=00 per 10 gm at that point of time. In addition she gave a pair of gold ear ring weighting about 2.500 gm plus Rs. 15,000=00 in cash to the OP and the purpose of giving such gold and cash was to remodel the said gold ornaments into one pair of pure gold (churi) which the complainant desired to give the same to her mother for puja festival. The complainant went to collect the gold ornaments from the OP but as the bangles having less weightage of gold she did not receive the same. It is submitted by the complainant that total weightage of bangles is 47.600 gm (45.100 +2.500). The petitioner asked the OP about less quantity of gold and it was replied by the OP that as there exist pure gold hence it will not decrease further in terms of the weight. It was further stated by the OP that two gold bangles and one pair of ear rings will be made from the pure gold deposited by her. Being perplexed the complainant requested the OP to return the gold ornaments given to him along with money which was paid in cash but the OP did not return the same to the complainant. Thereafter in absence of the complainant the OP delivered the said ornaments to her mother and upon receipt of the same the complainant went to the testing centre for examining the genuinity of the gold ornaments and therefrom it has been ascertained that the gold which the OP provided in the ornaments is not pure at all. Alleging the said allegation the complainant has filed this complaint before this ld. Forum praying for certain reliefs.

We have carefully perused the contents of the complaint and the documents annexed by her along with the petition of complaint. Heard argument from the ld. Counsel for the complainant. It is seen by us that cause of action arose on 14.5.2014 when the complainant went to the OP for placing an order to remodel her old ornaments by making payment of old ornaments along with sum amount in cash. The booking slip does not reveal the delivery date of the said ornaments after remodeling the same. The one and only document which the complainant files issued by Vijay Assay Centre Pvt. Ltd., Gold Tester wherein the purity of the gold was tested as claimed by the complainant and who has provided one report on 18.7.20916,  but it is seen by us that the said report was issued in the name of the customer, namely, Binod. Therefore it is very difficult to ascertain by us that the complainant herself approached before the said gold tester for testing the purity of the gold ornaments as the report was issued by the said testing centre nor in the name of the complainant but in the name of another customer. In our view the said report dated 18.7.2016 does not help the complainant to save the limitation of this complaint. As the cause of action arose on 14.5.2016 and this complaint has not been filed by the complainant within the statutory period of limitation i.e. two years from the date of cause of action in view of Section 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986, hence we are of the opinion that the complaint suffers from its limitation point of view as per the above-mentioned Section. Moreover the complainant did not file any separate petition u/S. 24A of the C.P.  Act, 1986 praying for condonation of delay. Therefore, the complaint should be dismissed. Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the Consumer Complaint being no. 138/2016 is hereby dismissed being barred by limitation and without being admitted.

            Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost as per provisions of law.

                   (Asoke Kumar Mandal)        

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                 President       

                                                                                                          DCDRF, Burdwan

                      (Silpi Majumder)                                                     

                             Member                                                                   

                    DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                   (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)                          (Silpi Majumder)

                                                           Member                                                 Member    

                                                     DCDRF, Burdwan                               DCDRF, Burdwan