National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Mohite Ornament House vs Shri Harish Misra on 20 January, 2009
This revision petiton seeks to challenge the order dated 14 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI Revision Petition No. 3688 of 2008 (From the order dated 14th January 2008 in Appeal No. 1835 of 2004 of the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal) M/s Mohite Ornament House Petitioner Purani Galla Mandi, Sidhi District Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh (Babu Rao Bambaiwale) versus Shri Harish Misra Respondent Zilla Adhyaksha Akhil Bharatiya Upbhokta Congress Nutan Colony, Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh BEFORE: HONBLE MR JUSTICE R. C. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR ANUPAM DASGUPTA MEMBER For the Petitioner Mr U. N. Shukla, Advocate Dated the 20th January, 2009 ORDER
ANUPAM DASGUPTA This revision petition seeks to challenge the order dated 14th January 2008 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (hereafter, the State Commission). By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the original complainant (respondent here and referred to as the complainant) and directed the petitioner to pay to the complainant Rs.33,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/- (inclusive of the charges for analysis paid by the complainant to MMTC Ltd., a Central public sector enterprise, for analysis of the gold content of the ornament bought by the complainant from the petitioner). The amount was directed to be paid within 45 days from the date of communication of the order of the State Commission, failing which it was also directed that the amount would carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of the order till payment. Finally, the State Commission directed that the gold ornament deposited by the complainant and as received from MMTC Ltd. be returned to the petitioner (original opposite party).
2. The relevant facts of the case are few and have been summarised adequately in the impugned order. We do not deem it necessary to reproduce them.
3. The only points for consideration in this petition are the delay of 117 days in filing of the petition and, more important, the actual gold content of the ornament which was admittedly sold by the petitioner to the complainant way back on 10.9.2000 for a sum of Rs.14,016/-.
4. We have considered the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of this long delay, which has been worked out after calculation of the time spent for obtaining a certified copy of the order (which was passed ex parte because neither the petitioner nor its counsel was present before the State Commission on the last day of hearing). No substantive or valid ground has been made out in this application for condonation of delay of as long as 117 days, except that the counsel engaged by the petitioner is an old person and was unavailable for nearly 90 days on account of some personal difficulty. This is hardly acceptable. We are, therefore, not persuaded to condone the delay on the basis of this bald application.
5. We have also considered the petition on merits. The State Commission took the initiative of getting the gold content of the ornament tested by MMTC Ltd., which is authorised by the Central Government to hallmark and also sell such ornaments. It is observed in the impugned order that in the test by MMTC Ltd., the purity of the gold in the locket of the ornament (Mangalsutra) was found to be 760.6 while that of the chain was 885.8. The State Commission, therefore, found that the purity of the gold in the ornament was much below the promised purity of 24 carat. But the petitioner has sought to make much of the alleged controversy as to whether it had promised to sell the Mangalsutra to the complainant claiming the purity of 24 carat of gold.
6. The levels of purity of gold, when translated from the old English system of describing them in terms of carat into the current millesimal fineness are categorised as under:-
24carat = 999 millesimal fineness 22 carat = 916 millesimal fineness 20 carat = 833 millesimal fineness In other words, the levels of purity of gold in the two parts of the Mangalsutra, viz., 760.6 for the locket and 885.8 for the chain, cannot equal even 22 carat if the weighted average of the gold purity for the whole Mangalsutra is taken. In other words, the level of purity of gold in the Mangalsutra sold by the petitioner to the complainant was much below even 22 carat.
7. In conclusion, the impugned order is entirely justified and no interference is called for at our level. We are constrained to observe, however, that the practice of selling ornaments of gold and/or precious metals and stones without proper hallmarking and warranty regarding the levels of purity is, unfortunately, a widely prevalent malpractice across the entire country. Clearly, such practices need to be curbed with a heavy hand. But for the fact that the complainant has not approached this Commission with a cross revision petition, we would have been inclined to impose punitive damages on this petitioner for indulging in such a practice.
8. However, given the facts and circumstances of the case, it would suffice to dismiss the petition.
9. We order accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
...............................................
[R. C. JAIN, J] PRESIDING MEMBER ................................................
[ANUPAM DASGUPTA] MEMBER