1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased 4 pieces of Bronze-gold bangle 43.350/7.00 gms. from OP vide M. R. No.578 dt.05.10.2014 for Rs. 20, 500/- and after a total use of 8 days within 6 months of purchase, the bangles  faded for which the complainant requested the OP for refund of cost in lieu of bangles.  It is submitted that the OP did not agree to take back the ornament but advised the complainant to come after some days and the complainant is trying to pursue the OP to get refund of his money till filing of this case.  It is further submitted that the OP finally agreed to take refund of his bangles in half rate against the request of the complainant to deduct only Rs.2000/- from the cost of bangles.  The complainant alleges that the OP has sold the gold bangles of fewer carats for which the bangles faded.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the OP he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to refund Rs.20, 500/- towards cost of bangles with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase and to pay Rs.15, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     In spite of valid notice the OP neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner and remained ex-parte.  Hence the case was heard from the complainant and posted for order on merit basing upon the documents available on record.

3.                     In this case the complainant has filed M. R. No.578 dt.05.10.2014 for Rs.20, 500/- in support of purchase of bangles from OP and as such sale of bangles to the complainant by OP is proved.  The allegation of the complainant is that within 6 months, his wife has used the bangles for 8 days and the ornaments got faded.  He approached the OP for return of defective bangles but the OP pretended with the complainant.  The complainant alleges that due to fewer carats of materials than that of 23/21 carat mentioned in the M. R., the bangles got faded.

4.                     In absence of participation and counter of the OP in this case, we lost opportunity to know anything more from him and hence the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.   Further it is seen from the M. R. that the OP has written on the foot note of the bill that exchange value is 50% less by striking out 10% already printed in the bill.  A simple writing on the bill like this by OP will not do as because it is not a valid contract between the parties and the complainant is not a privy to it.

5.                     In view of above facts, we hold that the OP has adopted unfair trade practice by not taking back his ornaments on the request of the complainant.  Due to growing rate of gold, the offer of 50% reduction on the gold ornaments by OP during refund is not acceptable by us particularly within 6 months of its sale which leads to unfair trade practice.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.20, 500/- with interest from the date of sale since the ornaments proved to be faded.  Again due to such inaction of OP, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has filed this case incurring some expenditure for which he is entitled for some relief.  Considering the sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost in favour of the complainant will be just and proper.

6.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Opp. Party is directed to refund Rs.20, 500/- towards cost of bangles with interest @ 12% p.a. from 05.10.2015  in lieu of defective bangles and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)