DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2024
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 18/04/2023
CC/103/2023
Ramadasan K.N.,
S/o. Narayanan K.A.,
House No.530, Kundammar House,
Kappadam, Karimba Post,
Palakkad – 678 597 - Complainant
(By Adv. E. Sureshkumar Nair)
Vs
1. Aneesh K.,
Proprietor,
Guru Jewellery, Kottayi Road,
Chungamannam, Palakkad – 678 571
2. Manager,
Guru Jewellery, Kottayi Road,
Chungamannam, Palakkad – 678 571 - Opposite parties
(By Adv. C. Nandakumaran)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Briefly put, complainant’s case is that he purchased a gold ring weighing 4.010 grams on 25/1/2023 from O.P.1. Rate of gold as on that date was Rs.5082/- per gm. Hence the cost added upto Rs.20,378.82 for 4.010 gms and minimum making charge @3% came to Rs.611.36/-. Rs.19,400/- was paid through bank. OP issued a bill for Rs.23,460/-. When the complainant sought for a GST bill he was threatened and he had to pay an additional Rs.3,600/-. Post purchase, the complainant weighed the ring and found that it weighed only 4.005 grams. The OPs have resorted to unfair trade practice and tax evasion. Complaint is filed seeking claim as shown in Ext A8 claim and for incidental expenses.
- OP contested the pleadings and filed version stating that there is no illegality whatsoever. They refuted the allegation that cost of gold was Rs.5082/ per gram on 25/1/2023. They objected to the allegation of charging excess making charges and reduction in weight of the ring. In fact, even if the cost was Rs.23,460/- the complainant was given an estimate of Rs.23,000/-. Complainant is not entitled any of the reliefs sought for.
- The following issues were framed for consideration:
- Whether the OPs had failed to issue GST bill to the complainant?
- Whether the OPs had charged excess amount towards GST & making charges as alleged by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?
- Any other reliefs?
4. (i) Documentary evidence of complainant comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits
A1 & A12.
- Marking of all documents were objected to on the ground that they were photocopies. Marking of Ext.A1 is specifically objected to on the ground its does not accompany Section 65B certification. Ext.A2 is further objected to as this document does not carry the signature or seal of the issuing authority.
- Objection by the counsel for opposite party that the said documents were photocopies or that Ext.A1 is unaccompanied by Section 65B certification are rejected since this Commission is not bound by Indian Evidence Act or BSA. Further, counsel for opposite party has no case that these documents are forged or fabricated.
- The 3rd objection, aimed specifically at Ext.A2, is that the said document does not have seal and signature is prima facie true. But counsel for O.P. has no case that this estimate was not issued by them. Hence even in the absence of seal and signature, we are accepting the said document on file.
(ii) OP filed proof affidavit but did adduce any documentary evidence.
Issue No.1
5. The complainant has alleged that the OP had failed to hand over an invoice as contemplated under law to the complainant. The said pleading is accepted by OP as per paragraph No.3 in the version. O.P.s had clearly stated that they had handed over an estimate of Rs.23,000/- instead of the cost of Rs.23,460/- as sought for by the complainant. Hence, we need not go any further to see that the OP has resorted to illegality albeit at the instance of complainant (as per their pleading). But fact remains that nothing prevented them from issuing a bill in accordance with law showing the details of their income and details of the tax payable. No excuse would condone such an infraction. Conduct of the complainant tantamount not alone to unfair trade practice, but also to willfully and illegally depriving and defrauding the state coffers off considerable revenue.
6. Subject matter of this issue being in harmony with the principle of res-ipsa-locquitor, we need not go through any further evidence. We find that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in not handing over an invoice as contemplated under law.
Issue No.2
7. Complainant’s case with regard to charging of excess amount is that, on 25/1/2023, he purchased gold ring weighing 4.010 gms @Rs.5082/ gram. Per complainant, the making charges would come only Rs.611.36/-. Hence according to the complainant, the total cost should come only to a total amount of Rs.20,990.18. But the OP issued a bill for Rs.23,460/-. It is this extra amount that the complainant alleges was illegally availed from him.
8. OP has repudiated this pleading. They objected to the statement that the price of one gram of gold as on 25/1/2023 was Rs.5082/ gm.
9. When there was such serious objection to a pleading, the complainant ought to have adduced evidence to prove the cost of gold as on that date. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove that the cost of gold is Rs.5082/- as on that day.
10. Further Ext.A10 is an interim receipt issued by the Gold Assaying and Testing Laboratory of Legal Metrology Department. Description of this document, as shown in the proof affidavit of complainant, is that this is a final report. But this is only a receipt. In Schedule 4 of Ext.A10, details of item received is one sealed packet weighing 1.640 grams. Thus, it can be seen that the complainant has failed to prove that the complainant had handed over the same item he purchased for assaying as evidenced by Ext.A10.
Further, none of the documents produced by the complainant shows that any action was taken either by the Kerala State Legal Metrology Department or the office of the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax, GST Department. All the documents produced are mere communications between the parties and not any adjudication by any of the aforesaid authorities.
11. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove that the OP had over-charged him.
Issue No.3
12. As already found in Issue No.1, the opposite party has failed to issue a GST bill containing details as contemplated under the statute. This is a clear deficiency and illegality on the part of the OP.
Issue No.4
13. Complainant’s claim is filed in the form of a schedule and the same was marked as Ext.A8. A total of Rs.93,000/- claimed. Compensation claimed is Rs.50,000/-. Cost claimed is Rs.20,000/-. We are of the opinion that the complainant is justified in claiming the compensation and cost to this extent as the O.P. had failed to issue GST bill, which per se, is an illegal conduct.
But we are unable to grant the claim with regard to the difference in the bill as alleged and as the complainant has failed to prove that there was difference in price as alleged by him.
Issue No.5
14. Based on the discussions above we allow the complaint in part on the following terms:
1. Complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/-
2. Complainant is entitled to a cost of Rs.20,000/-.
3. OP shall comply with the aforesaid directives within 45 days of receipt of this order failing which they shall pay Rs.500/- per month or part thereof as solatium from the date of this order till the date of full and final compliance of this order.
Pronounced in open court on this the 12th day of August, 2024.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Copy of transaction details of 25/1/2023
Ext.A2 – Copy of estimate dated 25/1/23
Ext.A3 – Copy of lawyers notice dated 27/1/23
Ext.A4 – Copy of communication dated 7/2/2023 issued to Jt.Commissioner of GST.
Ext.A5 – Copy of communication dated 7/2/2023 issued to Dy.Controller, Legal Metrology Dept
Ext.A6 – Copy of Communication dated 5/4/2023
Ext.A7 – Copy of Communication dated 10/4/2023
Ext.A8 – Statement of claim
Ext.A9 – Copy of communication dated 18/8/23 issued to Dy.Controller, Legal Metrology Dept
Ext.A10 – Copy of Item receipt dated 24/5/2023
Ext.A11 – Copy of communication dated 18/8/2023 issued to Jt.Commissioner of GST.
Ext.A12 – Copy of communication dated 05/09/2023
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
