BY - SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the Complainant is the permanent inhabitant of the above mentioned address. The Opposite Party is the Proprietor of “NANDU JEWELLERS” of Vill- Dakshin Chanchiara (near Nadarbag Rail Gate), Pratappur, Purba Medinpur. The Complainant is the Customer of “NANDU JEWEELERS”. On 11.09.2017 Complainant went to O.P’s Shop for making some Gold Ornaments for his wife and he paid sum of Rs. 27,000/- in cash to the O.P. as advance and got receipt from the O.P. on that day. Thereafter, on 05.12.2017 Complainant went to O.P’s said Shop and paid Rs. 20,000/- in cash and got receipt. On 12.02.2018 Complainant also went to O.P’s Shop and paid Rs. 20,000/- in cash and also got receipt as per demand of O.P. At last O.P. assured to Complainant that he would make those Gold Ornaments within one month and deliver to Complainant. Thereafter, Complainant went to that Shop ( NANDU JEWELLERS”) several time to collect Gold Ornaments. But O.P. did not make any Gold Ornaments for Complainant’s wife. At last On 22.09.2018 Complainant again went to that Shop and met with O.P. and requested him to repay total amount of Rs. 67,000/- in cash. But O.P. did not return anything. Thereafter, a meeting was held on 01.10.2018 at village Nadarbag (Temple of Kalimata) for amicable settlement between Complainant along with O.P. and other person in presence of local respectable persons regarding Complainant’s complaint. Where O.P. assented with Complainant that he took total amount of Rs. 67,000/- in cash in this regard/. But O.P. did not give back the said amount of Rs. 67,000/- to Complainant. Therefore, Complainant sent a Demand Notice to the O.P. on 30.07.2019 through his Ld. Advocate by Regd. Post and O.P. received the said Notice. But O.P. did not take any step regarding Complainant’s Demand. In view of the above facts and circumstances O.P. willingly harassed to complainant and he did not give any Gold Ornaments or repay any money in cash till today. Therefore, complainant most humbly prays for an order to give back total amount of Rs. 67,000/- of the Complainant by the above O.P. an order to pay Complainant of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) by the O.P. due to harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- for conduct of this case. An order of other reliefs in the eye of law and equity.
The has contested the case by filing written version stating inter alia that on 11.09.2017 the Complainant came to the shop of the op for making gold chain weight 30 grams, it has been decided in between both parties that the cost will be of 85,500/- including making and other charges. The complainant in this case agreed with the op and complaint paid in several date and time of Rs. 20,000+ 10,000+15,000+5,000= Total of Rs. 50,000/- respectively. In the meantime as per request the OP in this case made and supplied to the complainant one gold covering pola and steel plated ornament whose cost of Rs. 9,500/- only. The op did not make or unable to make said gold chain due to high rate of the gold. The op always asked or told the complainant regarding the high price or rate of the gold and asked to pay more money but the complainant did not pay any heed to it. At present the business of the O;.P. is in ruined situation . According to op the case is liable to be dismissed.
Points for determination are:
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Is the complainant entitled to the relief(s) as soughtfor?
Decision with reasons
Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.
We have carefully perused and assessed the affidavit of the complainant, written version filed by op, evidence of both parties and other documents.
Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case it is evident that the complainant being a consumer has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the op- ; the bundle of facts indicate that this case is maintainable in its present form and in law.
Indisputably, the complainant approached to the op at his jewelry shop for making gold ornament and the op did not supply any such ornament to the complainant as agreed by both parties. The bone of contentions between the parties that complainant asserts that he made advance payment of Rs.67,000/- on the contrary op states that he received only Rs.50,000/-. On careful analysis of the evidence on record particularly the receipts filed by the complainant clearly establish complainant’s case that On 11.09.2017 Complainant paid sum of Rs. 27,000/- in cash to the O.P. as advance and got receipt from the O.P. on that day thereafter, on 05.12.2017 complainant went to O.P’s said Shop and paid Rs. 20,000/- in cash and got receipt and on 12.02.2018 Complainant also went to O.P’s Shop and paid Rs. 20,000/- in cash. Thus ,complainant made payment of cash advance of Rs.67,000/- to the op for purchasing gold ornaments. Taking advance of Rs.67,000/- from the complainant ,the op till this date did not supply the gold ornaments. The op has not been able to demolish the above noted evidence of the complainant in any way with a view to establishing his claim. In course of hearing of the case op tried to convince that due to his poverty he closed his shop, he even sought for an order of repayment through easy installment. His such a plea can not be accepted. It has been clearly established that op has set an instance of unfair trade practice and caused harassment and mental stress to the complainant in the dealing of gold jewelry.
Consequently, coming to the reliefs to be granted it would be just and proper if the op is asked to refund Rs. 67,000/- the advance money paid for ornament making , Rs.5000/-as compensation and Rs.3000/- as Litigation cost to the complainant within one month from this date of order; in default the OP will have to pay Rs. 100/- per day till the date of actual payment in addition to the said amount for non compliance of the order.
Both the points are decided accordingly. Thus the complaint case succeeds in part.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the CC/545 of 2019 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP.
The OP is hereby directed to refund Rs. 67,000/- the advance money paid for ornament making , Rs.5000/-as compensation and Rs.3000/- as Litigation cost to the complainant within one month from this date of order; in default the OP will have to pay Rs. 100/- per day till the date of actual payment in addition to the said amount for non compliance of the order.
The complainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution if requires.
Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to each of the complainant and the OP free of cost.
