Today is fixed for hearing the appeal on merit. This appeal is directed against the final order dated 28/1/2019 passed by Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Jalpaiguri in CC no. 1 of 2019. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the appellant/complainant T Deb filed a consumer complaint before the Ld. Forum to the effect that the complainant with her husband went to the Jalpaiguri Showroom of Senco Gold limited for purchase of a gold Mangal sutra with offer of exchange of an old torn gold chain, weigh 11.30 gram with purity of 91.66 %/22 Carat which was deposited on 25/4/2017 and the new one to be delivered to her weighting 15.4 grams on 29/4/2017. The old gold item was handed over to the concerned employee of showroom for verification of purity. The concern employee surprisingly melted said gold chain wrongly before verification of purity and changed the original shape and reported her that the purity of the said gold items where 77.63 and weight was 10.95 grams. This change of original shape by adopting the unfair method which was not consented by the complainant and her husband at that time and in this way the concern showroom and its employee had intentionally destroyed the most important evidence by melting and change this original shape of the said gold items before verification of purity separately. For that reason, the complainant claims rupees 8784 of the total loss, she has suffered along with interest at the rate of 9 % and rupees 10,000 for unfair trade practice for deceitful attitude and deficiency of service and compensation of rupees 5000 for harassment. The complaint was registered before the Ld. Forum and thereafter it was placed for admission before the bench. At the time of hearing the admission point, the Ld. Forum came to conclusion that alleged incident was held on 25/4/2017 and the consumer complaint was lodged on 10/01/2019. There was delay of one year and eight months and the same consumer dispute petition was filed after prolong period with malafied intention and for that reason, complaint was dismissed on its admission stage. Being aggrieved with this order the appeal follows on the ground that the order of Ld. Forum was passed on misconception without appreciation of the facts and circumstances and without providing any opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidences.  The respondent has contested the case through Ld. Advocate M Paul and the appellant has conducted her case through her husband G Deb by due authorisation. The appeal are heard in presence of the representatives of both parties.

Decision with reason,

After hearing both sides, it comes to notice of the Commission that the complainant has approached the show room of Senco Gold jewellers and Company for buying a gold chain by exchange of an old chain she handed over. At the time of examining purity of the old gold item, the respondent side has intentionally without taking consent of the complainant has changed the shape of the item from its originality and in this way has defrauded the complainant through deceitful means.

Certainly the complainant is a consumer and she felt deficiency of service on the part of the respondent and for that reason, came before the Ld. Forum with a consumer complaint. The alleged incident took place on 25/4/2017 and the complaint was registered on 10/1/2019. Ld. Forum has dismissed the consumer complainant on the ground at admission stage that there was delay of one year and eight months in lodging the consumer complaint and the Ld. Forum was not in a position to adjudge the veracity of statement of the complainant with regard to purity of the gold and value thereof. Ld. Advocate of the respondent at the time of argument mentioned that the Ld. Forum was not equipped with the machinery of ascertaining purity of gold items and also had no ex-pertise knowledge to ascertain the veracity of the allegation of the complainant to hold whether the purity of the gold item handed over by the complainant to the respondent, was lower down intentionally by the process of melting and for that reason, Ld. Forum has rightly dismissed the consumer complaint on its point of admission. In support of his contention Mr. M Paul has referred a judicial decision of Hon’ble NCDRC in revision petition no. 3020 of 2003 dated 12/1/2015 where it was observed that the consumer/purchaser of precious metal ornaments like golds are left at the mercy of the traders who according to BIS report sell 90% of gold articles, which are not inconformity with the purity declared in the bills and it is the Phenomena throughout the country and for that reason, the Hon’ble NCDRC has approached the government to take proper measures in order to protect interest of the purchasers of gold. After hearing the both sides the Commission finds that according to provisions of Consumer Protection Act, the consumer has right to file a consumer complaint within two years from the date of cause of action. Here the cause of action arises on 25/4/2017 and 29/4/2017 while the consumer complaint was registered on 10/1/2019 that is within two years from the date of incident.

Secondly, the consumer protection Act has specially empowered Ld. Forum to have an inquiry or to investigate the veracity of the allegations in the consumer complaint by taking the help of other machineries which has been categorised in the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Here in this case, the consumer complainant has approached to ventilate her grievances. She could not get an opportunity to adduce sufficient evidence in support of the claims. So the order of Ld. Forum appears irregular one and unwanted in the arena of adjudicating authority of consumer dispute. Here in this case, the complainant has sufficiently mentioned in her pleading that she was bonafide consumer and she comes within the purview of “consumer” under the provisions of consumer protection Act. The case was filed in due time. So it was the responsibility of the Ld. Forum to take cognizance of the consumer dispute in its adjudication process and the Ld. Forum in this case has committed a serious mistake at the time of dismissing the consumer complaint on its bud till the waiting of its full blossom which caused nipped at the bud. The respondents has contested the appeal. So they are aware about the existence of the consumer complaint case and now they can contest the consumer complaint before the Ld. Forum by submitting their written versions after obtaining the copy of the consumer complainant from the Ld. Forum.

Accordingly the appeal succeeds.

Hence, it is,

Ordered,

That the instant appeal be and the same is hereby allowed on contest without any cost against all the respondents. The final order of Ld. Forum dated 28/1/2019 in reference to CC no. 1 of 2019 is hereby set aside. The consumer complaint submitted by Mrs. T Deb is hereby admitted on its own merit. The opposite Parties are directed to submit the W.V in the consumer case no. 01 of 2019 before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Jalpaiguri within 30 days from this day and they are at liberty to collect the copy of notice of consumer complaint from the Ld. Forum which are lying with the record. Both parties are directed to appear before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Jalpaiguri on 30/9/2019 for further reference.
 

Let the order be supplied to the parties free of cost and also to be sent to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Jalpaiguri.