Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/1/2022

Smt. Harpreet Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s P.P. Jwellers Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Inder Singh & Badat S. Randhawa Adv.

12 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	1 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	06.01.2022
Date of Decision	:	12.07.2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smt. Harpreet Bansal W/o Sh. Umang Bansal, H.No.3480, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1]      P.P. Jewellers & Diamond Pvt. Ltd., SCF 24, Sector 22-D,          Jewellery Market, Chandigarh through its Authorized         Representative.

2]      P.P. Jewellers & Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.23-A, C-1, 2, 3, PP Tower Netaji Subash Place, Pitampura, Delhi (North West) – 110034 through its Authorised Representative.

 …..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

              MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

 

ARGUED BY :-   

 

Sh. Ravi Inder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Angad Singh Khosla, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 exparte vide order dated 01.04.2022.

 

PER  RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by the complainant, namely, Smt. Harpreet Bansal (appellant herein), against order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’), whereby her consumer complaint bearing No.783 of 2019 has been dismissed by the Ld. District Commission.

2.             The case of the complainant (appellant herein), namely, Harpreet Bansal, before the Ld. District Commission was that the appellant purchased two gold rings for Rs.43,810/- and paid Rs.41,230/- after discount vide bill dated 28.07.2019 (Annexure C-1).  The rate of 22 carat gold was Rs.3310/- per gm and labour making charges were 6 % per gram plus GST @ 3%.  She gave both rings to respondent No.1 back for minor alteration in size against receipt. She was informed that if during alteration, 1 mg of extra gold was to be used then she had to bear the cost for the same.  She collected both the rings on 30.07.2019 and it was found that the weight of both the rings was reduced to 0.22 gms (amounting to Rs.795/-) and as such, she demanded the refund of the same but the same was not paid to her. The appellant agitated as to why excessive amount was charged, as in the bill, the respondents mentioned the gold weight as 11.41 gms but in actual, the appellant got 11.19 gms of gold.  According to her, the GST was charged on 11.41 gms of gold and she only got 11.19 gms which is short of 220 mgs. Alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents, the appellant filed complaint before the District Commission.

3.             On the other hand, the case of opposite party No.1 (respondent No.1 herein), namely, P.P. Jewellers & Diamond Pvt. Ltd. situated at Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, before the District Commission was that they never charged excessive amount of Rs.795/- on purchase of gold jewellery.  It was stated that the appellant wanted her two rings altered and she was informed that an amount as per actual (approx. charges) was to be charged for the alteration and the charges were between Rs.450/- to Rs.500/- approximately per ring.  It was further stated that the appellant was asked to pay Rs.1,000/- for both the rings as alteration charges and after adjusting an amount of Rs.795/- (refund for the reduced weight), she was asked to pay the difference of the amount i.e. Rs.205/- but instead of paying the same, she started arguing that she was not liable to pay any amount for the alteration.

4.             Despite due service, Opposite Party No.2, namely, P.P. Jewellers & Diamond Pvt. Ltd., situated at Pitampura, Delhi, did not appear before the District Commission and as such, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.02.2021. In the present appeal, respondent No.2/ Opposite Party No.2 did not appear despite due service and again exparte proceedings were ordered against respondent No.2 vide order dated 01.04.2022.           

5.             The order of Ld. District Commission, dismissing her complaint, has been impugned by the appellant on the ground that the Ld. District Commission passed the impugned order totally on surmises and conjectures and has not given any valid reasoning while deciding the case. It has been stated that the Ld. District Commission just considered the stand of respondent No.1, which is without any proof and wrongly dismissed the complaint. It has further been stated that if some extra gold was to be put then the appellants would be made to pay to the extent of every mg of gold added but in the present case, the weight of the rings was reduced by 220 mg, and as such, the respondents were duty bound to refund an amount of Rs.795/ to the appellant, which they refused to refund, which the Ld. District Commission has failed to appreciate. It has further been stated that the Ld. District Commission also failed to appreciate the fact that respondent No.1 in Para 5 of its reply admitted that an amount of Rs.795/- was to be refunded. On these grounds, the impugned order is sought to be set aside.

6.             After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record very carefully, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be accepted and the impugned order is liable to be set aside for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The factual position of the case is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the weight of the rings was reduced by 220 mg and after adjusting Rs.795/- (refund for the reduced weight), the appellant was asked to pay the difference of the amount i.e. Rs.205/-. The only question, which arises for consideration before this Commission is as to whether the respondents could adjust the amount of Rs.795/- in such a manner. Our answer to this question is in the negative. Notwithstanding the fact that the weight of the rings was reduced by 220 mg, the respondents ought to have refunded the amount to the appellant to the extent the weight of the rings was reduced, which they did not do. Rather the action of the respondents in adjusting the said amount is a clear deficiency in rendering service and also amounted to unfair trade practice on their part. On one hand, the weight of the rings got reduced and on the other hand, the amount for the reduced weight of gold was not refunded by the respondents. This practice adopted by the respondents should be stopped and curtailed immediately. Had they obtained any written consent from the appellant for the said adjustment, the matter would have been different. They could not do so on their own. Thus, the Ld. District Commission failed to appreciate the facts and evidence on record in true perspective. As such, the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission suffers from material irregularity, which is liable to be set aside. In our considered opinion, the respondents are liable to refund the amount of Rs.795/- to the appellant. Besides this, for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the appellant, the respondents are further liable to compensate the appellant. In our concerted view, consolidated compensation for mental agony and physical harassment  and litigation expenses, if granted in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, that would meet the ends of justice.

7.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted. The impugned order dated 02.11.2021 is set aside. Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 is partly accepted with cost. The respondents, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-

1.     to refund an amount of Rs.795/- to the appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @9% per annum (simple) from the date of passing of this order till actual realization.
2.     to pay a consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant towards compensation and litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @9% per annum (simple) from the date of passing of this order till actual realization.

8.             Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

9.             The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

12.07.2022.

 [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 (PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Ad