DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 25 of 31.1.2017

                                      Decided on: 12.7.2017

Gurdeep Singh son of Sh.Gurbilas Singh, resident of village Nabipur, Post Office Nabipur,Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Sunil Jewelers, Opposite Post Office, G.T.Road, Rajpura,District Patiala, through its Proprietor Bhupinder Kumar.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                                       

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.M.L.Sharma,Adv.counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite party ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER             

1. The complainant purchased  on 15 March,2015 , 14.940 gms. , 22 carat gold ornaments(one neckless and one pair of ear rings @ Rs.28000/- per tola (i.e. 10gms.) for a total cost of Rs.52,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum  of Rs.35000/- in cash and also gave 7/8 gms., Old rings of which Rs.17000/-cost was assessed by the OP. The OP did not issue any receipt for the cash payment and adjustment of old gold ornaments.The said purchase was made in the presence of Sh.Lakhwinder Singh (Ex.sarpanch) of village Dalo Majra,Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib. It is  averred that due to some domestic problem on 20^th July, the complainant went to Muthoot Finance Fagehgarh Sahib for availing gold loan. The finance company, when checked the gold, it was found to be fifty percent duplicate (defective) as well as discoloured. Immediately on 20^th July,2016, the complainant alongwith Sh.Lakhwinder Singh approached the OP and the OP told that the karigar might have committed negligece while preparing the ornaments and he assured the complainant that he will prepare new gold ornaments and also told the complainant to come on 10.8.2016 and also gave a receipt of receiving the defective gold ornaments. The complainant visited the shop of OP many times  but to no use. On 17.4.2016, the complainant again visited the shop of the OP alongwith Sh.Lakhwinder Singh but the OP did not deliver the gold ornaments but he promised  in writing to deliver the same on 10.11.2016.Even after written assurance, the OP  did not deliver the gold ornaments to the complainant which amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.Ultimately, the complainant approached  this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act),1986.
2. On notice, the OP did not receive the notice which returned back as unclaimed. OP was deemed to have been served with the notice.Ultimatel;y OP was proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA, affidavit of Sh.Lakhwinder Singh, Ex.CB, alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant, gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case,carefully.
5. Ex.C2 is the copy of the rough estimate showing the weight of the gold ornaments as 14.940gms, purchased by the complainant. Ex.C4 is the copy of the receipt showing the receipt of the amount of Rs.35000/- by the OP from the complainant.Due to some domestic problem, the complainant needed some money and as such he approached Muthoot Finance to avail gold loan but on checking the finance  company found the gold ornaments to be 50% duplicate.The complainant immediately went to the shop of the OP alongwith Sh.Lakhwinder Singh on 17.10.2016.OP admitted that the karigar might have committed negligence while making the ornaments and he received back the gold ornaments from the complainant and promised to return the same by 10.11.2016 after remaking the new gold ornaments.Since 17.10.2016 the gold ornaments have been lying with the OP who has not returned the same to the complainant after remaking the gold ornaments as promised by him as per the document,Ex.C5.The complainant approached the OP time and again but to no use.Thus, failure on the part of the OP to return the gold ornaments to the complainant amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on its part due to which the complainant suffered mentally as well as monetarily. Moreover, failure on the part of the OP to contest the claim of the complainant shows the indifferent attitude of the OP to redress the grievance of the complainant.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to the OP to deliver the 14.940grams 22 carat gold ornaments and if that is not possible to refund the price of 14.940gms 22 carat gold to the complainant. OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant which is inclusive of the cost of litigation. Order be complied by the OP within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:12.7.2017                

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER