By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The complainant’s case is that he sold some of his gold ornaments and purchased new one from the respondents. The complainant sold his gold on 5.12.07 and purchased the new ornaments on 7.12.07 vide invoice No.4476. At the time of selling his 43.080 grams gold the respondent fixed Rs.876/- per gram for 31.610 gram gold and Rs.952/- for 11.470 gram gold. Fixing the different prize is illegal and without any basis. The respondent also levied huge amount as making charge. And also no invoice number is recorded in the purchase bill when they received the gold. These all amounts to unfair trade practice and the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.2402/- when he sold his gold ornaments. So a lawyer notice was issued on 24.12.07. But there was no remedy. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The respondents denied all the averments in the complaint in their counter. They have stated there in that at the time of selling the old gold the staff of the respondent checked the purity of the gold items by scanning it at gold analyzer at the presence of the petitioner. They had intimated the complainant the quality and purity of the gold items and also the value available for the same. Realizing these, the complainant was ready to sell his ornaments to the respondent. The maximum value available at the time of sale was handed over to the complainant. He was also ready to sell his ornaments for the value stated by the respondent. The respondent never received any excess amount from the complainant and they had not received any excess amount under the head of making charge. The lawyer notice was duly replied on 1.1.08. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is the complainant entitled to get any amount as claimed?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of Ext. P1 to P5, Exts. R1 to R3 and the oral testimony by the PW1.
5. Points: The complainant sold 43.080 grams old gold on 5.12.07 to the respondents and purchased new ornaments from them on 7.12.07. His case is that the respondent fixed different rates when he sold his gold. They fixed Rs.876/- per gram for 31.610 grams and Rs.952/- per gram for 11.470 grams. The complainant claims this as illegal and baseless. But the respondent has stated that their staff had checked the purity of the gold items by scanning it the gold analyzer at the presence of the complainant. The complainant was also intimated the quality and purity of the gold items and also the value available for the same. Ext. P1 is the purchase bill dt. 5.12.07. Rs.8976/- is seen calculated for 31.610 grams of gold and Rs.952/- is seen fixed for Rs.11.470/- grams of old gold. The complainant is examined as PW1. PW1 has deposed that the gold he sold to the respondents was not more than 1½ years old and he purchased the gold from Gold Park Jewellery. But the purchase bill has not been produced. The PW1 denied in the box that the purity of the gold was checked in his presence. But he was not satisfied with the rate of price he should not have sold his gold to the respondents.
6. The complainant has also raised the contention that excess amount has collected from him under the head making charges. The respondents denied this. Ext. P2 is the invoice dt. 7.12.07 by which the purchase was made. On a perusal of Ext. P2 it is seen that 2 bangle having 35.860 weight was sold and rate fixed was Rs.952/- per gram. No making charge is seen recorded in the Ext. P2. As per Ext. P1 purchase bill the complainant advanced Rs.38,000/- for purchasing the new ornaments on 5.12.07 and he purchased the new ornaments on 7.12.07. So if the complainant had any dispute in the transaction he should not have kept Rs.38,000/- as advance for the future purchase. At the same time the complainant had only the knowledge from the shop that the old gold was of 22 carat. And no purchase bill is kept with him. Hence he failed to prove that the old gold was of pure quality and the respondent levied excess amount under the head making charge.
7. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 7th day of February 2012.
