The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.P, where O.P is the Proprietor, Epari Sadasiv Pvt. Ltd. situated at Station Square, P.S- Sahadevkhunta, P.O/Dist- Balasore. 

                    1. Factual matrix of the dispute is that the Complainant had purchased one gold chain from the O.P’s shop on 09.11.2015 on payment of Rs.24,300/-. The O.P intimated to the Complainant that discount @ 5% is available for total value of the ornaments to be purchased by the Complainant. The rate on the scheduled day was Rs.25,000/- per 10 gms. of gold and making charges was Rs.270/- per one gram of gold, as informed by the O.P to the Complainant. But on 10.11.2015, the Complainant purchased another gold chain of 12.910 gms. costing Rs.36,670/- and exchanged the gold chain purchased on 09.11.2015 for Rs.24,300/- and accordingly, the Complainant paid difference amount of Rs.12,370/- to the O.P as per their retail invoice No. 4709, dt.10.11.2015. Thereafter, the Complainant calculated the value of the said ornament and noticed that the said retail invoice supplied by the O.P is a defective one, which the Complainant brought to the notice of the authorized person of O.P. on 11.11.2015, but the same authorized person of the O.P did not listen to the request of the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant served an Advocate notice to the O.P on 13.11.2015 by Regd. Post with A.D, requesting them to settle the dispute, which was received by them on 14.11.2015, but the O.P did not pay any heed to it, hence filed this case against the O.P for necessary relief. Prayer for refund of excess amount taken along with interest and compensation towards mental agony sustained by the Complainant.

                     2. The present O.P did not prefer to receive the copy of complaint as filed by the Complainant and sent by the Forum through Regd. Post with A.D. Rather, the O.P refused to receive the same. Moreover, one of the representative on behalf of the O.P present in O.P’s shop (business place) refused to receive the copy of notice along with copy of complaint sent by Special messenger to be served upon the O.P, as per direction of the Forum. The Proprietor of the said business concern was absent on that day as reported by the said representative. Sufficient opportunities were given to the O.P, but the O.P neither appeared in the case nor filed their written version. Hence, the O.P is set ex-parte.   

                     3. On perusal of the documents available in the case record filed by the Complainant, it is noticed that:-

(i) Copy of invoice No.4709 dt.10.11.2015 for Rs.12,370/- supplied by the O.P to the Complainant is revealed that the Complainant had purchased a gold chain weighing 12.910 gms. The rate of gold is Rs.2500/- per gram and accordingly, the cost of gold is Rs.32,275/-.

(ii) Terms and conditions exhibited by the O.P at the back side of the above said retail invoice in condition No.3 under Sales column which read as “Every individual piece carries different cost of making charges, which is based on quality and craftsmanship”. But in the instant case, the O.P has not disclosed the rate of making charges for One gram of gold for knowledge/ information of the Complainant. However, the O.P has levied Rs.4031.93 ps. towards making charges to the Complainant on 10.11.2015.

(iii) Thus, total cost of gold, making charges and applicable VAT comes to Rs.36,670/-. But, the O.P has narrated the bill amount such as:-

Actual Sales Amount Rs.37,955.00 ps., Discount Rs.1,648.34 ps. comes to total Taxable amount is Rs.36,306.93 ps. plus VAT Rs.363.00 ps. Total Amount Rs.36,670.00 ps. But, it is not clear how Rs.36,670/- is converted to Rs.37,955/- in narration column of retail invoice supplied by the O.P to the Complainant.

                     4. Basing on the materials available in the case record, it is argued on behalf of the Complainant that the O.P has taken the excess amount of Rs.1,285/- as in the Retail invoice, the price is mentioned as Rs.36,670/- including VAT, but in the payment details the actual sale amount has been mentioned as Rs.37,955/-. There is no detail explanation from the side of O.P under what circumstances he has taken as such, which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The entire allegation remain un-challenged as O.P has been set ex-parte.

                     5. So in the circumstances basing on the materials available in the case record, this Forum is of the opinion that the Petitioner is only entitled for refund of such amount followed by interest, if not paid in time with compensation of Rs.1,000/-. Hence, Ordered:-       

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on ex-parte against the O.P with cost. The O.P is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,285/- to the Complainant and compensation of Rs.1,000/- with cost of Rs.500/-. The O.P is also directed to comply this order within 60 days from the date of receiving of this Order, failing which it will carry interest @ 6% per annum till realization. The Complainant is at liberty to realize the same from the O.P under due process of Law.                 

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 19th day of April, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.