Filtering out the unnecessary details in the complaint, the Complainant’s case may be summarized thus:-                                                                                                  

             In epitome, the fact stated in the complaint, is that, the Complainant is a customer under the Opposite Parties who are proprietors of Kiranmoyee jewelers at Contai Super Market. On 31.12.2014,  the Complainant purchased one golden chain of 21.030 Gms.  from the shop of the OPs at a price of Rs. 75,000/- only . At the time of delivery the OPs gave assurance that the gold was of KDM brand and it is made of pure gold and it would be replaced if not found in healthy condition.  After some days' use the Complainant noticed that the glaze of the necklace is decaying day by day and parts thereof are breaking. The Complainant made the Ops  appraisal about such fact and requested to do the needful. The OPs gave assurance to repair the same and claimed a sum of Rs. 4000/- only as repairing charge. The Complainant fully relied upon the assurance of the OPs and handed over the said golden chain along with Rs. 4000/- only  on

31.12.2014 to the OPs, but the OPs did not return the said golden chain after its due repairment. But all along the OPs gave assurance that they would return the said golden chain after repair in due course of time. Thereafter on 25.04.2018 the Complainant informed the OPs in writing regarding the aforesaid dispute and requested to supply the necklace but still then the Ops did not take any positive steps, what amounts to negligence and deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant for which being victimized and harassed by the Opposite Parties the Complainant finding no other alternative than to file the instant case seeking adequate redressal against the Opposite Party. 

             The Complainant has filed the receipt of delivery of the golden chain, postal receipt, copy of inland letter card, postal receipt thereof and acknowledgment in support of her claim.

             Despite service of the notice, the Opposite Party No. 1 never appeared before the Forum himself and/or through their representative/Ld. Advocate to contest the case by filing Written Version and so the instant case has been heard ex-parte against the Opposite Party No. 1.

             Resisting the complaint, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed the Written Version denying the contention made by the Complainant in his complaint and stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable, the Complainant has no cause of action, complaint is barred by limitation and the Forum has got no jurisdiction to deal the instant matter.          

              The specific case of the Opposite Party No. 2 in terse, is that, actually  this OP No. 2 is not the proprietor of the Kiranmoyee Jewelers and he has been falsely implicated in this present Complainant. This OP no. 2 has further asserted that in the delivery challan or order, there is signature of the OP no. 1 Dilip Kamilya , not the same is signed by this OP no.2. So, he is not liable in any manner for the deficiency of service if any, in the part of the OP Jewelry shop.

             Thus, this Opposite Party No. 2 has denied any negligence or/ and deficiency in rendering service on their part towards the Complainant. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of this case.

                                       Points for determination :

 1. Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?

 2. Was there any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

 3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

                                     Decision with Reasons.

            Both the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity.

            On overall evaluation of the argument made before us by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and the ld. Advocate of the Opposite Party No. 1 and critically perused the material evidences on record, it is clearly evident that admittedly the Complainant is the consumer under the both Opposite Parties by purchasing the said gold chain in issue and delivering the same to the Opposite Parties for proper repairing.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

            The Complainant alleged that at the time of purchasing the said gold chain in dispute  the OPs gave assurance that the gold was pure gold of KDM brand but after some days' use the same started decaying and parts thereof started breaking. The Complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 4000/- only  to the OPs for repairing  the same as per demand of the OPs, but the OPs did not return the said gold chain in issue to the Complainant after repairing.

             But the record reveals that the contesting OP no. 2 has stated that he is not the owner of the alleged Jewelry House from which the Complainant had purchased the said gold necklace and as per his contention , the OP no. 1 was the owner of the alleged Jewelry House. But it is manifestly evident from the photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant that in the ‘Receipt’ it is specifically printed the name of this contesting OP no. 2 as Owner. So the contention of the OP no. 2 stance to be false and it is undoubtedly proved that the OP no. 2 is one of the Owners of the alleged Jewelry House.

             Now, the next point is that the OP no. 2 further stated that he did not issue the voucher or order slip in favour of the Complainant but it was signed by the OP no. 1 and from the said ‘Receipt’ dated 31.12.2014 filed by the Complainant which was issued by the OP no. 1 it is clearly revealed that such statement is true and the said ‘Receipt’ / Vouture is duly signed by the OP no. 1 from which it is proved that the OP no. 1 is also the Owner of the said alleged Jewllery House.

             So, from the above analysis it is established that both the OP no. 1 and 2 are the joint Owners of the said alleged Jewelry shop from where the Complainant purchased the said gold chain in issue. Moreover, It is also manifestly revealed from the documents (Receipt) that the name of the Opposite Party No. 2 Pradip Kamilya is specifically written / printed in the said ‘Receipt’ as the ‘Owner of the said alleged Jewllery Shop and the Opposite Party No. 1 Dilip Kamilya his brother has signed the said ‘Receipt’/Order Slip issued in  favour of  the Complainant. So both  the Ops are jointly and severally liable to redress the grievance of the Complainant.

             So the unanimous decision of the Forum is that both the Opposite Parties  are deficient and/or negligent in rendering service towards the Complainant and is liable to refund the said paid money amounting to Rs. 4,000/- only to the Complainant and further be liable to return the said gold chain in issue after due repairment towards the Complainant and also be liable to pay the adequate compensation for harassment and mental agony to the Complainant.

             Therefore in light of the above analysis, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has successfully proved this Complaint case and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequentially the points for determination are decided in affirmative.

   The complaint  case succeeds.

   In the result, we proceed to pass

                                  O R D E R

             That the CC Case No. 398 of 2018 be and same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No. 2  and  Ex-parte against the Opposite Party No. 1 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- only which is payable jointly and severally by both the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2.

             That the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally are directed to return the said Gold Chain in dispute after due repairment of the same towards the Complainant within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

             That the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally are directed to pay a sum of  Rs. 4,000/- only to the Complainant (which was paid by the Complainant as repairing charges) within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

             That the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 6,000/- only to the Complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

             In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the Opposite Parties within a period of one month from the date of this order, the default Opposite Parties shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- per day, from the date of this order till full satisfaction of the decree, which amount shall be deposited by the said default Opposite Parties in the State Consumer Legal Aid Fund.

  Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.