DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL)ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO. 265/2019

No. DC/ Central/

vs.

Coram:       Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

                   Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

ORDER

Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

1. The present complaint has been filed by one Sh. Sahab Singh (in short the complainant) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against The General Manager, Retail (MMTC) (in short OP) pleading therein that he had purchased gold bangles from his savings for his wife from MMTC Showroom, Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi on 24.05.2019 on payment of Rs. 75,354/- including SGST and CGST for 02 Bangles having weight of 20.990 gms. It is further his case that after using the said bangles for 15 days, it was found that bangles were of inferior quality in terms of its design and was not of merchantable quality. Accordingly, having detected said defect in design, the bangles were returned to the showroom of MMTC and after scrutiny, office of the MMTC accepted the defect in the quality of design as alleged.
2. Thereafter, the complainant requested the office of the MMTC to cure the defect in the design. The OP had suggested the complainant that in view of the policy of the MMTC the complainant should return the aforesaid bangles and on such return, MMTC/OP will give new bangles to him. The complainant surrendered his previous bangles having defect with a view to obtain new bangles. After surrendering the bangles to OP it was brought to the knowledge of the complainant that the new bangles were of heavier in weight than that of previous bangles (old defected bangles 20.990 gms and new bangles 22.720 gms). OP directed the complainant to pay for the total weight of the new bangles i.e. 22.720 gms at the prevailing rate. As per the complainant’s version he had objected that he was bound to pay difference of weight i.e. 1.730 gms only at the rate prevailing in the month of May 2019 when he purchased the bangles initially but objection of the complainant was not accepted by the OP and OP had taken the previous defective bangles on the rate which was prevailing in the month of  May 2019 and the OP charged new bangles at the prevailing rate in the month of June 2019.
3. It is further complaint of the complainant that due to difference of amount in the old and new bangles wrongful loss caused to the complainant to an extent of Rs. 6,717/- and corresponding wrongful gain to the OP. For the aforesaid difference in rate, complainant wrote to the General Manager of OP and in response he also received a letter denying to pay the difference of amount to an extent of Rs. 6,717/- by the OP.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the instant complaint has been filed with the following prayer:-

1. Direction to the office of MMTC to reimburse Rs. 6,717/- to the Complainant;
2. To pay compensation for causing mental pain and agony as deemed fit.
   5. To add further, OP has filed reply to the said complaint pleading therein, inter alia, that the complainant had bought the first set of bangles on 24.05.2019 and had taken more than one month to detect the defect in the bangles and had approached OP on 27.06.2019 citing the alleged defect in the bangles. It is further case of the OP that the claim of the complainant is baseless, false and an afterthought as the defect was due to the improper use of the bangles by the complainant. OP has further stated in its reply that OP/MMTC Ltd. is a Govt. of India Enterprise and the company does not have any buy back policy which is explicitly mentioned in the terms and conditions of the invoice. However, OP further states that bangles were taken back by the OP as a goodwill gesture as an exceptional case and it was mere sales return as was also communicated in the reply to the letter of the Complainant dated 02.07.2019. As per the OP’s stand in its reply the defect was a wear and tear one. OP has also stated in its reply that at the time of the sales return, the complainant was clearly explained that the new jewellery, which he would buy, would be at the existing rate of gold on the day of the new purchase and the complainant had agreed to it. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint about any patent/ manufacturing defect in the bangles have been denied by the OP. Rather, OP has added in its reply that due to the improper and wrong usage of the bangles, the bangles had developed defect. OP has further stated in its reply that it had offered to get the wear and tear defect corrected against payment but the complainant did not agree. It is also the case of OP that the gold prices vary on day to day basis and the complainant was clearly made aware that the new jewelry, which he would buy, would be billed according to the rate of gold on the day the complainant would buy the new jewelry which the complainant had understood and agreed to go ahead.  It is also the case of OP that in sales return, the amount to be returned is the amount that has been paid by the customer and nothing more and nothing less as has been stated in its reply by the OP. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint has been denied by the OP and rejection of complaint with exemplary cost has been requested.  
   6. We have also seen the contents of Rejoinder, WAs and Affidavits of Evidence placed on record by both the parties and found that there are only repeatation of the stands taken by both the parties in their complaint and written reply.
   7. We have gone carefully through the records available in the case file and have also given thoughtful consideration for the same. To our understanding, we find force in the submissions of the OP that prices of gold vary on day to day basis for which complainant was clearly made aware of the same. And if complainant purchased the new bangles having heavier weight on the day of second purchase, the complainant would be required to pay difference of amount for the extra weight of the bangles at the rate which existed on that day.

8.   We also find merit in the submissions of the OP that it had no buy back policy and it agreed only to exchange the bangles as a goodwill gesture. More so, we also find one of the terms and conditions mentioned on the tax invoice(old and new tax invoice) i.e. “ Goods once sold will not be taken back.”

9. To move further, the stand of the OP in its Written Submissions that there was no manufacturing defect in the old bangles except it was a defect of wear and tear one seems justified. It is also the case of the OP that the so-called defect in the old bangles happened due to the improper use of the bangles by the complainant. This submission of the OP gains force based on the submission of complainant in his rejoinder wherein, inter alia, he has mentioned that my wife is a housewife and does household works like “kneading dough of flour by hand, wash utensils, wash clothes, sweeping and mopping etc. If that is so, while doing aforesaid routine works by the wife of the Complainant possibility of some defacing of the bangles can not be ruled out if aforesaid households works are not done with proper due care and attention. However, complainant in his rejoinder has alleged that OP did not give him any instruction as to how bangles are to be used. Allegation of the complainant that no instructions was given to him regarding proper usage of bangles does not convince us in the sense that it is common prudence of an ordinary man as to how to use such costly bangles while doing the household works in routine.
10. In view of above, we do not find any force in the complaint and no deficiency of service is attracted on the part of OP. Therefore, instant complaint is dismissed being meritless.
11. Copy of this order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 18^th  July of 2022.