By Smt. Beena. M,Member:-

            This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

2.  Facts of the case in brief:  The Complainant had purchased 16 grams of gold (2 bangles) from the Opposite Party shop on 18.04.2022.   But 12 grams were charged Rs.4,505 per gram as per advance cash booking on 25/07/2021 and Rs. 4,985/- per gram for 4.18 grams as per board rate on 18/04/2022 and 3% GST was added as per law.  But as per the earlier agreement, only 3% duty should be charged for jewellery with a tag rate of less than 13%, but 6% duty was charged for 11.88 grams and 4.5% duty was charged for 4.18 grams of the same jewellery.  This was done without informing the Complainant.  On 14/04/2022, 2 bangles weighing 11.88 gms were purchased as per tag rate (14%) and labour charge of 6% was accepted and paid as per prior agreement.  But the person to whom gifted did not like these bangles and on 18/04/2022 as per terms and condition (2) of the company within 7 days, the Complainant returned the bangles undamaged and replaced the 2 bangles with 12% tag-rate.  For the purpose of marriage, 30 sovereigns gold was booked on 25/07/2021 in the name of the relative of the Complainant named Sajeevan Muthirayil using the advance booking facility and as per then gold price of Rs.4,505/-, it was stipulated that the tag rate would be 3% below 13% and 6% above 13%.  But on 18/04/2022, it was said that only 3% labour charge was charged as per the terms and conditions for the jewellery purchased in exchange and when he came home and checked, he realized that 6% was charged.  The said shop charged 3% for the same bangles purchased at equal weight and labour rate (as per tag rate) from them.   On 19.04.2022, under the impression that additional labor charges had been charged in the bill without knowing it, he called the Opposite Party and informed them about the error in the bill, the Complainant was informed that the amount charged could not be refunded due to the increase in the price of gold.  Then calling the head office of the Opposite Party it was informed that the loss was compensated. On 21.04.2022, the Opposite Party called the Complainant and informing that the extra amount charged would be refunded, then the Complainant was asked to return 2100 rupees for the 3% labour charge collected and he was informed that the cost amount would be refunded if the bangles purchased were returned.  The act of the Opposite Party is deficiency in service.  Hence this Complaint.

3.  Upon notice the Opposite Party appeared and filed version.  On 25.07.2021, 30 sovereign gold was booked by Sajeevan at the then gold price of Rs.4,505/- using advance booking facility.  The tag rate was fixed at 3% for jewellery below 13% and 6% for jewellery above 13%.  According to the aforesaid condition, the Opposite Party given the gold weighing 28 sovereigns and 6 grams to the customer named Sajeevan in several stages, he had not bought the remaining 1 sovereign and 4 grams of gold from the Opposite Party as it was required for his daughter’s marriage.  On 14.04.2022, the Complainant came to the shop of the Opposite Party and said that he is the relative of Sajeevan, who had purchased from the shop of Opposite Party through advance booking and said that the unclaimed 1 sovereigns and 4 grams of gold should be given to the Complainant with concessions as stipulated. The Opposite Party had said that the concession would be granted only to those whose name is through advance booking. Moreover, the said Sajeevan has not informed the Opposite Party, whether orally, in writing or by any other means, that the active offer is to be made to a any person. The statement that 2 bangles weighing 11.88 grams were purchased on 14.04.2022 as per tag rate and agreed that 6% of the fee was charged as per prior agreement is incorrect.  An offer was made by the Complainant as a very close friend and acquaintance of Sajeev, who was making large purchases from the Opposite Party. On 18.04.2022 when he came to exchange the jewellery, the Opposite Party informed the Complainant even before the exchange of gold that the Complainant’s demand to give the offer cannot be accepted.  The Opposite Party submitted that the statement of the Complainant that in  term of labour charges, while there was an agreement to charge only 3% duty for jewellery with a tag rate of less than 13%, 6% duty was charged for 11.88 grams  and  4.5% duty was charged for 4.18 grams of the same jewellery, which was deliberately concealed without informing the Complainant and is untrue.  The above agreement was not entered into with the Complainant. The Opposite Party entered into an agreement with Sajeevan.  As per that agreement, the reduction on making charges were given to Sajeevan. It was said that if the Complainant comes with Sajeevan, the offer of the Sajeevan can be given to the Complainant with the consent of the Sajeevan.  There being no merit in the plea of the Complainant, Opposite Party prays to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost.

4.  The Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his claim and he is examined as PW1 and the documents produced marked as Ext.A1 and A2. On the side of the Opposite Party Manager of the Opposite Party filed proof affidavit and examined as OPW1. No documents produced from the side of opposite Party. 

 5. Based on the above averments and evidences, the points for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party?.

2. If so, what is the relief?

6.  For the sake of convenience both issues are considered together.

We have gone through the contents of affidavit filed and perused the documents produced.  We also thoroughly examined the oral evidence adduced by the Complainant and Opposite Party. The main allegation of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party collected excess amount as making charge.  Here at the time of cross examination of Complainant, he deposed that    “Rm³ hm§nb Znhkw tag {]Imcw 12% Bbncp¶p ]Wn¡qen.  Fsâ ssI¿n \n¶v hm§nbXv   4½  apX  6% hscbmWv.   1½ ]h\v  6% Dw  ½ ]h\v   4½ % Dw BWv ]Wn¡qen hm§nbXv AXv   bill  ImWn¨n«p­v”.                                           and the Opposite Party deposed that “18.04.22 Hcp {Kmw kzÀ®¯n\v 4505 cq]bv¡mWv \ÂInbXv.  AXv \nehnse hnetb¡mÄ Ipdhmbncp¶p.  A¶v ]cmXn¡mc³ c­p kzÀ®hfIfmWv hm§nbXv.  AXn Hcp hfbpsS ]IpXn `mK¯n\v 4.5 iXam\hpw _m¡n `mK¯n\v 6% BWv ]Wn¡qen CuSm¡nbXv.  Rm³ ]cmXn¡mc\pambn IcmÀ H¶pw CÃmbncp¶p.  kzÀ®hnebn market rate t\¡mÄ Hcp {Kman\v 480 cq] Ipdhn \ÂInbXv discount A\phZn¨Xn\memWv.  Show room Xocpam\n¨m GXv hnebv¡pw kzÀ®w hnev¡mw.  AXv R§fpsS hnthN\m[nImcamWv.  Htcm B`cW¯n\v c­v \nc¡n ]Wn¡qen CuSm¡nbXv icnbmtWm F¶v tNmZn¨m additional discount Bhniys¸«Xn\m Ipdhv sNbvXv sImSp¯XmWv”.  The deposition of the Complainant and Opposite Party itself shows that the Opposite Party has not collected excess amount as making charge from the Complainant.  The further allegation of the Complainant is that as per the earlier agreement, only 3% making charge would be charged for jewellery with a tag rate of less than 13%, but 6% making charge has been charged for 11.88 grams and 4.5 % for 4.18 grams of the same jewellery. It is clear from the deposition of the Complainant that there is no agreement between the Complainant and Opposite Party, actually the Opposite Party entered agreement with one Mr. Sajeevan. The Complainant is not entitled to get the benefit of agreement made between the Opposite Party and another person, even though he is the relative of the Complainant. Moreover, the Complainant clearly deposed that   “Rm\pw FXrI£nbpambn t\cn«v IcmÀ Cà IpSpw_hpambn«mWv IcmÀ.  FXrI£nbpambn t\cn«v IcmÀ Dff BÄ¡pam{Xta B\pIqeyw In«m³ AÀlXbpffp F¶v ]dªm A§ns\ thWsa¦nepw ]dbmw”.   From the evidence and deposition of parties shows that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.  Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to get the relief sought for and the complaint is only to be dismissed.

In the result the Complaint is dismissed without cost.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 17^th day of July 2024.

Date of Filing:-05.05.2022.

PRESIDENT   : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              Santhosh. V. R.                   Government Employee, Clerk.

Witness for the Opposite Party:-

OPW1.          Jenish. P. E.                          Private.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1(series).    Tax Invoice ( 2 numbers).                                                Dt:18.04.2024.

A2.                  Copy of Tax Invoice.                                              Dt:02.04.2022.      

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-

                        Nil.     

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-