| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 269 of 19.7.2018 Decided on: 2.2.2021 - Usha Silyan wife of Late Sushil Kumar Silyan, resident of H.No.29, Street No.3, Opposite Mohindra Collage,Mohindra College Colony, Patiala.
- Bharat Silyan son of Sushil Kumar Silyan, resident of H.No.29, Street No.3, Opposite Mohindra Collage,Mohindra College Colony, Patiala.
- Anamika Silyan daughter of Sushil Kumar Silyan, resident of H.No.29, Street No.3, Opposite Mohindra Collage,Mohindra College Colony, Patiala.
…………...Complainants Versus - Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd., Sahara India Bhawan, 1-Kapoorthala complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024(U.P.) through its Managing Director/Chairman.
- Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd., Opposite Polo Ground, Near Sethi Sales Corporation, Lower Mall, Patiala through its Manager/Sector Manager.
- Sahara India Parivar, Opposite Polo Ground, Near Sethi Sales Corporation, Lower Mall, Patiala through its Manager/Sector Manager.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Amit Trehan,counsel for complainant. Sh.Dhiraj Puri, counsel for OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - Briefly the case of the complainants is that Late Sushil Kumar had booked/purchased gold from the OPs in three portions and paid them Rs.20,453/- on 9.12.2012, Rs.37094/- on 24.12.20212 and Rs.27665/- on 8.1.2013 on the assurance given by the OPs that gold coins weighing 11 gram, 20grams and 15 gram (22 Karat) will be delivered to him after five years from the date of purchase at discounted price of 62.50% of price on the date of booking.
- It is averred that after the due date he contacted the OPs, time and again but the OPs refused to deliver the gold coins to him.He also got served a legal notice dated 8.4.2018 upon the OPs but of no avail. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the complaint by giving directions to the OPs to deliver the gold coins of 11 gram, 20 gram and 15 grams; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/-as costs of the complaint.
- Upon notice OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is defective for impleading Sahara India Pariwar unnecessary party and is liable to be dismissed.
- On merits, it is submitted that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and OPs.It is admitted that the complainant had booked the gold by paying Rs.20453/- on 9.12.20212, 37094/- on 24.12.20212 and Rs.27,665/- on 8.1.2013. It is further submitted that the said amount was deposited on Gold having its value Rs.1,36,334/-..There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.OPA and Ex.OPB of Rameshwar Gupta, Sector Manager of OP, alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that Late Sushil Kumar Silyan had booked and purchased gold from the OPs from their Patiala branch in three portions and deposited Rs.20453/- on 9.12.20212, Rs.37094/- on 24.12.2012 and Rs.27,665/- on 8.1.20213.The ld. counsel further argued that after due date the delivery of gold became due but the OPs neither delivered the gold nor refunded the amount deposited by the complainant. Hence the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that this court has no jurisdiction to try the complaint and the complainant has to file the same before Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Society, so the complaint be dismissed.
- To prove this complaint , complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his written statement, Ex.C1 is the copy of Aadhar card, Ex.C2 is the receipt of Rs.20,453/-Ex.C3 is the receipt of Rs.37094/- and Ex.C4 is the receipt of Rs.27,656/-.Ex.C5 is the legal notice sent to the OPs.
- On the other hand Sh.Rameshwar Gupta has tendered affidavit,Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written version.
- As per the case of the complainant he booked the gold in three portions with the OPs and paid the amount of Rs.20453/-,Rs.37094/- and Rs.27656/- vide receipts Exs.C2 to C4. So from the documents it is clear that late Sushil Kumar Silyan has deposited Rs.85203/- but till today nothing has been paid to him by the OPs. No defence has been setup by the OPs to prove that whey they have not paid the amount.
- So due to our above discussion, the complaint stands allowed and the OPs are directed to refund Rs.85,203/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the last date of deposit till realizsation in equal shares to the legal heirs of late Sushil Kumar Silyan. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation and Rs.5000/-as costs of litigation. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED DATED:2.2.2021 Y.S.Matta Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |