. O R D E R
Sri.K.Vijayakumaran, President. This is a complaint seeking a direction to the opposite party to return the excess amount collected from the complainant, compensation, cost etc. (2) The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows. The complainant believing the opposite party’s promise shown in an advertisement published in Mathrubhumi daily dated: 31.01.2008 purchased 44.140 grams of gold ornaments from the show room of opposite party at Kottarakkara. The rate of gold on the date of purchase was Rs.1095/- per gram and accordingly as per opposite party’s promise the complainant was liable to pay Rs.48,333.30/- towards the value of the gold ornaments purchased. The complainant effected payment by giving 34 grams of gold ornaments, the value of which would come to Rs.37,230. In addition to that the opposite party collected Rs.21,650 where as the actual balance amount payable by complainant after the exchange value of gold was Rs.11,103.30/-. Hence the opposite party illegally collected Rs.10,546.70/-. From the complainant which he is entitled to get back. The conduct of the opposite party is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint. (3) The opposite party filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not known to the opposite party and the complainant had not purchased any article from the opposite parties jewellery shop. The averments in Para 2 of the complaint are false and imaginary. It is true that the opposite party is regularly giving advertisement in various newspapers for the business purpose. But the opposite party never made any promise to their customers for attracting their business as alleged by the complainant. The averments in paragraph 4 of the complaint is also false. It is true that one Mr.Ramachandran visited the opposite party’s jewellery shop and taken an estimate for purchasing gold bangles and for returning some gold items. But no sale or purchase was made according to the estimate given by the opposite party. The complainant has no cause of action for the complainant against the opposite party. Hence the opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint. (4) The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of P1 and Exts P1 to P4 on the side of the complainant and DW1 and Ext.D1 on the side of the opposite party. Points for Consideration (1) Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party? (2) Relief and costs. Points The case of the complainant is that the opposite party after giving Ext.P1 publication in newspapers offering discounts collected excess amount from him when he purchased gold ornaments from opposite party in pursuant to Ext P1 and such conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is the further case that though the gold ornaments exchanged by him ought to have been given the prevailing market value on the date of purchase, the opposite party failed to do so and collected exorbitant amount from the complainant. (5) The opposite party would contend that the complainant never purchased any gold ornaments from their shop and that they have never issued Ext.P2 and P3 estimates to him. It is the further case of the opposite party that there is no practice of issuing estimates when customers purchase gold ornaments from their shop. But they issue bills like Ext.D2 for purchase of gold ornaments from them. According to them Ext.P2 series are no way related to them. The complainant is relying on Ext.P1 which is a publication made by the opposite party in Mathrubhumi Daily in support of his case. Ext P1 notification is not disputed by the opposite party also. In Ext.P1 it is stated “ 916 Ÿ#195;¹#180;® #167;#195;¢»¡±#171;”” in bold letters and below that in comparatively small letters it is also stated “#195;#162; ©´—® 916 ©ˆ ©#161;#165;»¢916 #167;#195;#161;Ÿ#195;¹‡#164; œ#169;›¡ •#162;#353;¢ˆ©»¡ #161;¹¤©#161;›¢¹#180;® ˆ¢¶¤¼ 1/3 Ÿ#195;¹#180;® œÃ¢´¥#162;©#161; œÃ¢´¤#169;#161; ‚¿¡¨#732;¡#207; #167;#195;¢›#710;¢#161;»#162;.”” From Ext P1 it is obvious that the discount offer, therein is not available for the entire purchase but only to 1/3 of the gold (6) ornaments purchased it appears that the complainant has worked out the calculation on the assumption that the discount offered in Ext.P1 is applicable to the entire ornaments purchased. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any unfair trade practice. There is also nothing in Ext P1 to the effect that the exchanged gold ornaments will get the prevailing market value. It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that there is no material to show that the gold ornaments exchanged by the complainant are also of 916 purity. It can also be seen that the complainant has worked out the value for the new gold as well as the exchanged gold at the rate of Rs.1095 per gram. In the absence of evidence to show that the gold ornaments exchanged had 916 purity and in the absence of any offer in Ext P1 that the exchanged gold ornaments also would get the prevailing market value the complainant cannot claim the same rate for such gold. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant failed to establish deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Points found accordingly. (7) In the result the complainant fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 26th day of August 2010. K.Vijayakumaran : Sd/- Adv.Ravi Susha : Sd/- R.Vijayakumar : Sd/- // Forwarded by Order // Senior Superintendent INDEX List of witness for complainant PW1 - Anil kumar List of documents for complainant P1 -Copy of newspaper (Mathrubhumi dtd: 31.01.08) P2 - Bills dtd: 01.02.08 (Two in number) P3 - Advocate Notice P4 - Postal Receipt List of witness for opposite party DW1 - Cheriyan Thomas List of documents for opposite party D1 - Sale Report D2 - Bill Books | 
