BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.308-2013

DATED ON THIS THE 27^th November 2015

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, seeking a direction to make and deliver the golden kasine sara approximately weighing about 60 gms at the prevailed rate on 08.08.2011, by collecting the balance amount in excess of `60,000/- paid under Golden Harvest Scheme (GHS) monthly deposit scheme and also to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards the loss, mental agony, cost of proceeding and such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant apprehending steep hike in the gold rate, decided to place an order, for golden kasina sara with unique design carved on the coin, rushed to the opposite party’s showroom at Mysore on 08.08.2011.  Due to non-availability of the desired design the complainant insisted the opposite party staff to look into the catalogue for any other designs or to enquire from its manufacturing unit.  But, the opposite party personnel fail to show any other designs available with it on 08.08.2011, even though the complainant was ready and willing to place an order for the ornament.  Thereby, alleging the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties filed this complaint seeking reliefs.

3.     At the outset, the opposite parties denied the allegations as false and contended that the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The opposite party admitted that the complainant had subscribed to golden harvest scheme by paying a sum of `5,000/- per month, for a period of 11 months and on maturity the complainant was entitled for a sum of `60,000/.  The opposite party submits that the complainant visited the showroom just to make an enquiry and not to place an order for an ornament on 08.08.2011.  Further denies that the complainant was not ready to deposit 75% of the total value of the ornament.  As such left the showroom without placing the order for the ornament.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
4.     Both parties lead their evidence by filing affidavits and placed several documents to prove their contentions.  Written arguments filed by the parties and on hearing both sides and perusal of the documents, matter posted for orders.

5.     The following points arose for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and that she is entitled for the reliefs?
2. What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant is a regular customer of opposite party, visited the opposite parties show room at Mysore during first week of August 2011.  The complainant had subscribed to opposite parties golden harvest scheme, by depositing a sum of `5,000/- per month for a period of 11 months.  The scheme was to mature on 18.09.2011 and the maturity value was `60,000/- (55,000 + 5,000).  The complainant on hearing a news of steep hike in gold rate in the coming days, rushed to opposite parties show room to place an order for an ornament.  The complainant intended to place an order for kasina sara with the coins engraved with a unique design, approximately weighing about 60 grams.  The complainant was ready to make the payment of 75% of the total value of the ornament, so as to freeze the gold rate per gram at prevailing days rate, to avoid financial loss due to hike in the gold price.  The complainant was intended to make use of the golden harvest scheme money by placing an order for the ornament, searched for a design uniquely carved on the coins.  The designs available on display was not of complainant’s choice, as such requested the opposite party staff to show any other designs available in the catalogue or to verify from its manufacturer for other designs.  The opposite party failed to show designs engraved on the golden coin.  The complainant was made to wait till the closing of the business on the day without giving a proper response.  Thereby aggrieved by the attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, seeking reliefs.
8.    The opposite party admitted that the complainant was its member for the golden harvest scheme (GHS).  The opposite party submits, the complainant had subscribed to the GHS after thoroughly understanding the terms and conditions and paid a sum of `5,000/- per month for a period of 11 months.  The scheme period was 18.09.2010 to 18.09.2011.  The complainant was entitled to redeem the benefits of the GHS only on or after the maturity date i.e. 18.09.2011.  The complainant visited the opposite party showroom on 08.08.2011 on the pretext of making an enquiry of ornaments, not to place an order, as such, the opposite party showed the available designs engraved on the coins in kasina sara.  But, the designs were not of the desired choice.  The opposite party staff realizing the non-availability of the satisfying designs with it, sent mail to its manufacturing unit but could not get the reply immediately.  As such, the flower design engraved on the coin was not shown to complainant on 08.08.2011, by opposite party staff.  The opposite party admitted, it would freeze the price of the gold at the current days rate on receipt of 75% of the total amount towards the value of the orders placed on ornaments, because to make the ornaments it requires 30-40 days time.  Therefore, the complainant was trying to make use of the maturity amount of GHS, by depositing the same before its maturity date, for placing of an order, but the same was not permitted under the terms and conditions of GHS.  As such, the complainant left the showroom without placing an order.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  Further, opposite party submits that, in view of the introduction of the Companies Act, 2013 read with companies acceptance of deposit rules, 2014, in order to ensure compliance of the new rules, the opposite party is ready and willing to pay a sum `57,500/- to the complainant.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint as not maintainable.
9.    The material on board, shows that the complainant is a regular customer of opposite party, who made purchase of ornaments on several occasions had subscribed to the golden harvest scheme with an intention to buy ornaments from opposite party.  In order to save the financial loss due to hike gold price, the complainant rushed to the opposite party showroom to place an order for kasina sara with unique design carved on the coin.  It is true that the complainant, dissatisfied with the non-availability of a specific/desired design, requested the opposite party staff to verify from its manufacturing unit for which the opposite party fail to provide the suitable reply and made the complainant to suffer till the closure of the show room.  But the flower design carved on the coin was shown on 09.08.2011 to complainant.  This act of opposite party had certainly caused mental agony to the complainant.  The defence, taken by the opposite party that the complainant had visited the showroom just to make an enquiry and not to place an order for ornaments is not acceptable, because the complainant was a regular customer, purchased ornaments for the lost several years from opposite party.  Further, to comply with provisions of the new rules, the opposite party’s offer of a sum of `57.500/- is not justified, in view of retaining the complainant’s GHS money since its maturity date i.e. from 18.09.2011.  The complaints lodged by the various aggrieved customers placed on record, also supports the opposite parties deficiency in service. In view of the above discussions, the opposite party is liable to pay the damages for the inconvenience caused, mental agony and for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
10. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we hereby proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay `60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 18.09.2011, to the complainant, within 45 days of this order.  
3. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay `50,000/- towards mental agony, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and `5,000/- towards litigation expenses, to the complainant, within 45 days of this order. 
4. In default, the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay penalty of `200/- per day, until compliance is made.
5. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite parties shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
6. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 27^h day of November 2015)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER