Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/14/138

Major Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mohan Jewellers - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Varinder Singh, Adv

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 138 of 05.11.2014

                                 Date of decision               : 24.02.2015

 

Major Singh, son of Sh. Gurmeet Singh, resident of Village Sainfalpur, Tehsil & District Ropar.

                                                                             ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

M/s Manohar Jewellers/Sonu Di Hatti, Main Bazar, Mianpur, Tehsil & District Ropar.

                                                                             ....Opposite Party

 

                                       Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

None for the complainant

Sh. UdheyVerma Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party

 

 

ORDER

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Major Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.’ only) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To pay Rs.50,000/- as cost for not preparing golden ornaments to the satisfaction of the complainant,

 

ii)      To pay Rs.10,000/- as counsel fee including all other charges like cost of notice etc. and unwanted litigation,

 

iii)     To pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for mental harassment caused to him and his sister.

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he was to perform marriage of his sister and accordingly, on 14.08.2013, he alongwith his said sister visited the shop of the O.P. to purchase some gold ornaments for the said marriage. The O.P. showed them a demo set and they selected the same, which included necklace, earrings & two rings, but the gold set, which was prepared & supplied by the O.P. to him, was not as per the Demo set selected by them. Since the said set was purchased by him for wearing of the same by her sister at the occasion of her marriage, after seeing the set supplied by the O.P., she felt disgraceful. When he complained about the same to the O.P., then it started making excuses of different types like absence of skilled persons and that of material and threatened him to accept the gold set. He had already paid Rs.86,000/-, out of total amount of Rs.92,015/- and an amount of Rs.6,015/- is still to be paid by him.  As the marriage of his sister was very near, there was no other option except to get the said golden set. At that time, he had demanded the original bill of the said ornaments from the O.P., who refused to issue the same and assured to supply the same after getting the same issued from Haryana, but the O.P. has not issued the same till date.  He had got issued a legal notice through his counsel upon the O.P., but inspite of that the O.P. has not issued the original bill regarding the amount received by him. The O.P. is, thus, deficient in rendering service to him. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                On being put to notice, the O.P. through its proprietor, Sh. Sunil Verma, has filed written statement in the shape of his affidavit, admitting therein that the complainant alongwith his sister had visited him to purchase some jewellery articles for her marriage. Accordingly, he had shown them the demo set and as per their selection, he had manufactured necklace, ear rings and two rings, the total price of which was Rs.92,015/-.  After receiving the said golden ornaments, the complainant & his sister both were fully satisfied and the complainant had paid him a sum of Rs.86,000/- only and promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs.6,015/- within a short period. It is stated that when the complainant  did not pay the remaining amount of Rs.6,015/-, he requested him many times to pay the same, but of no use. When he pressurized him to make the payment, then he had filed the present complaint, in order to avoid payment of the remaining amount of Rs.6,015/-, by concocting a false story. The legal notice issued to him by the complainant was false & frivolous and the same was duly replied. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs, the same being false & frivolous.

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex. C1, photocopies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. tendered affidavit of Sh. Sunil Verma, proprietor of the O.P. as Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.

 

5.                Inspite of grant of sufficient opportunities, none had come present on behalf of the complainant to argue the case. We have heard the learned counsel for the O.P. and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

6.                The learned counsel for the O.P. vehemently  argued that the gold set was prepared as per the order placed by the complainant and at the time, the same was delivered to him, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.86,000/-, out of its total cost of Rs.92,015/-, and promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs.6015/- within short span of time, but he has not paid the same, therefore, the bill was not issued to him till date. The moment he pays the remaining amount due, the bill would be issued to him. To avoid the payment of said amount, he has filed the present complaint, which is liable to be dismissed, the same being false and there being no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

 

7.                As per case of the complainant, for the purpose of wedding of his sister, he had placed an order with the O.P. for making a gold set i.e. necklace, ear rings, two rings, as per the demo shown to him & his sister.  The cost of the said set was Rs.92,015/-, out of which he had paid a sum of Rs.86000/- and balance of Rs.6015/- was due to be paid. However, the gold set, which was delivered by the O.P. to him was not as per the demo shown to him. At that time, the bill was not issued to him and the O.P. assured him to deliver the same lateron, but the same has not been issued till date. To prove this fact that the gold set delivered to him was not as per the demo set shown to him & his sister by the O.P., at the time of placing of order for the gold set in question, the complainant has neither placed on record the photograph of the demo set nor that of the gold set delivered to him, thus, in the absence thereof, it cannot be ascertained that the gold set delivered to him was not as per the demo set shown to him & his sister, at the time of placing of the order with the O.P. The complainant has himself admitted that a sum of Rs.6015/- is still to be paid by him to the O.P. towards balance sale price of the said gold set. Unless he clears the said dues, he cannot demand bill for the same from the O.P. In this view of the matter, no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. can be said to have proved on record. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

8.                The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of cost, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                           (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated: 24.02.2015                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                             (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                              MEMBER.