LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Abharan Jewellers 
Submit Complaint..
Sri. C.Nanjundappa
S/o. Late Channaveerappa Shetty
Aged 75 years
Residing at Old Uppally
Indavara Post
Chikmagalur Tq and Dist.
R/by his PA Holder
C.N. Shanthakumar
S/o. C.Nanjundappa
Age 49 years
V/s
Opposite Party:
Abharan (Jewellers)
192, Mahalaxmi Layout
West of Chord Road
Opposite:ISKCON
Bangalore-560 086
R/by its Manager
O R D E R
The grievance of the complainant in brief against the Opposite Party (Op in short) is that he visited the Op Jewellery shop on 25/06/2008 and purchased a ring of 22 CT purity weighing 7.110 gm at Rs1,182/- per gm by paying a total sum of Rs.10,500/-. Within 15 days, after purchase of the ring it lost its shining and was looking like an old ring. On 11/07/2008, he brought it to the notice of the Op who received it and delivered it on 13/07/2008 by applying a coat of polish and assured that shining will not deteriorate. The ring thereafter also started deteriorating and lost its shining and he noticed scratches in the ring giving an impression as few years old. Therefore, he believed that the ring sold by the Op to him was a used one. When he got issued a legal notice on 08/08/2008 calling upon the Op to refund the ring value of Rs.10,500/- the Op has not responded. Therefore, he has prayed for a direction to the Op to refund the value of the ring Rs.10,500/- with interest @ 18% p.a calling the action of the Op as deficient for having not repaid the ring value.
The Op has appeared through his advocate but has filed his version without the signature of his counsel. In the version, the Op has contended that the complaint is not maintainable. Denied all other allegations of the complainant except the fact that the complainant has purchased a ring from him on 25/06/2008 by paying a sum of Rs.10,500/- as detailed by the complainant with regard to the quality and quantity of the Ring. The Op has further contended that he has entered into the scheme for certification of the gold jewels fineness and has obtained BIS license for dealing in hall marking of the gold jewels by paying requisite fee. He has further contended that the ring sold to the complainant was a hall marked ring having hall mark identification which was certified by BIS hall mark centers and therefore he denied the contention of the complainant that ring sold to him was an used one or second hand and further stated that the complainant is not maintainable for not making that hall mark centre as one of the parties to the complaint and hence prayed for dismissal of the complainant.
The complainant is represented by a Power of Attorney Holder. His Power of Attorney Holder has filed his affidavit evidence by reproducing what is stated in the complaint. One Sudheendra Kalkura has filed his affidavit evidence on behalf of Op reiterating what is stated in the version of the Op. The complainant has produced a copy of the invoice, issued by Op when the ring was sold, a copy of the acknowledgment issued by the Op when the ring was given to them for polishing with a copy of the legal notice he got issued to the Op. The Op has produced copies of scheme for certification of gold jewel for fineness marking as per the scheme, procedure for scheme of testing and inspection license issued by the hall marking authority in dealing with the gold jewels with Bureau of Indian Standard.
Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. On the above contentions, following points arise for consideration.
1) Whether the complainant proves that the Op has adopted unfair trade practice or is deficient in his service by selling a used or second hand golden ring.
2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : See the Final Order
Answer for Point No.1
As evident from the contentions of both parties, we do not find any dispute with regard to the complainant purchasing a gold ring of 22 CT purity weighing 7.110 gm for a total cost of Rs.10,500/- from the opponent. The complainant has contended that the ring so purchased lost its shining and it was appearing like an old one, though he used it with all care.
It is further contended by him that on 11/07/2008 he gave the ring to the Op who polished it and returned on 13/07/2008 but again the ring lost its shining and he noticed scratches on the ring and therefore claiming that the ring sold to him by the Opponent is a used one or an old ring and has come up with this complaint claiming refund of the value of the ring. Whereas the opponent denied all these allegations but admitted to had polished the ring once at the instance of the complainant by further contending that he is dealing in jewels as a licensed dealer under BIS hall marking scheme and has further denied all the allegations of the complainant including he has sold a used ring and that ring contain scratches.
Admittedly, the complainant has not complained anything about the quality of the gold used for making the ring or anything about the weight of the ring. The complainant has not disputed that the gold ring sold to him is of 22 CT purity and it weighs 7.110 gm. Both these points are not at all in dispute. It is also not the grievance of the complainant that the OP has charged him excessively by collecting more value of the gold than it was prevailing as on date of purchase.
The only grievance of the complainant as it is emerging from the facts of the case is that ring lost its shining within short span of purchase and it contained scratches. It is common knowledge that the jewels after making or polished will have glittering shining when they are in the Jewellery Shop. After started using the Jewel, in due course the glittering polish may look dim but the purity of the gold will not change. Therefore people who wants glittering shining of the jewels they wear they may have to get the jewels polished as and when they desire.
Therefore, merely because the glittering polish faded away within short span of time that can not be a ground for filing a complaint of this type unless the complainant proved that the jewel sold to him is of a low quality or purity and that jewel sold to him is weighing less than the weight shown by the dealer in the bill. Some time, the fading of colour of jewel depends upon the users also. In order to prove that there are scratches on the ring, the complainant has not produced any expert opinion, certificates or view that any such scratches were there when the ring was sold to the complainant. Therefore, in the absence of such opinion or the materials to prove that the ring sold to the complainant contained scratches at the time of sale and it was a old ring the Op can not held as deficient or is practicing unfair trade practice in the course of business.
Therefore, the allegations of the complainant can not be heard. In the absence of proof of short coming of the Op it can not be held that the Op has sold a old ring. Further, the claim of the complainant that the ring sold has hall mark is not rebutted, that being so we find no merits in the complaint and therefore by answering point number one in the negative, we pass the following order.
O R D E R
Complaint is dismissed.
Parties to bear their own cost.
