State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
R.Mugamathu Aniba,Trichy Dist. vs Mangal & Mangal Thanga Maligai & 2 Others on 2 February, 2018
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present: THIRU.K. BASKARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
THIRU.S.M. MURUGESSHAN, MEMBER
F.A.No.37/2016
(Against the order in C.C.No.15/2015 dated 18.04.2016, on the file of the District Forum,
Trichirappalli,)
FRIDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018.
R. Mohammed Hanifa,
S/o. Rahamathullah,
No.51, Mookkan Complex,
Keezhapudur Main Road,
Edatheru, Palakkarai.
Trichirappalli - 1. Appellant/Complainant
Vs
1. Proprietor,
MANGAL & MANGAL THANGA MALIGAI,
25, NSB Road, Trichy.
2. Proprietor,
JOS ALUKKAS,
Alukkas Gold Retail India (P) Ltd.,
Chinnakkadai Street,
Trichy - 620 002.
3. Proprietor,
Lalitha Jewellery Mart P. Ltd.,
Block No.5, VMC Complex,
Chathiram Bus-Stand,
Trichirappalli - 620 002. Respondents/Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : Appeared party in person
Counsel for respondents 1 & 2/opposite parties 1 & 2: Mr. R. Sundar, Advocate.
2
Counsel for the 3rd Respondent/3rd opposite party : Mr.C. Kathiravan, Advocate.
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 15.12.2017 and on hearing
the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission
made the following:-
ORDER
THIRU.S.M. MURUGESSHAN, MEMBER.
1. This appeal is filed under section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the learned District Forum, Trichirappalli passed in C.C.No.15/2015, dated 18.04.2016, dismissing the complaint. 2 The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is as follows;-
That the complainant had filed a complaint before the learned District Forum, Trichirappalli praying for direction for refund of Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite parties being the excess amount collected by them and compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant alleging inter alia that when the complainant had purchased jewels from the opposite parties who are selling jewels the opposite parties had collected excess amount ranging between Rs.2500/- to Rs.3000/- per sovereign.
3. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by stating that a single complaint against the 3 different opposite parties on 3 distinct and different causes of action is not maintainable under the law and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and they had not levied any excess amount towards the price of the jewels sold to the complainant.
3
4. After an enquiry, the learned District Forum had held that there was no basis and documents to prove that the opposite party had charged any excess amount from the complainant towards the price of the jewels sold to the complainant and that a single complaint in respect of 3 different causes of action against three opposite parties is not maintainable and finally dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved complainant has come before this Commission by way of this appeal.
5. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the order of the learned District Forum suffers from any defect or infirmity?
6. Point: The only grievance of the appellant/complainant is that when he purchased jewels from the opposite parties, they had charged price in excess of the price for the goods purchased by him. He would allege that the opposite parties had charged price in excess of the price by Rs.2500/- to Rs.3000/- per sovereign of gold.
7. It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased jewels from the opposite parties either by paying cash or by selling old worn out jewels and cash as evidenced by the invoice and receipts marked as Exhibit A1, A2 and A3 series. A perusal of Exhibits A1, A2 and A3 series would show that in addition to the cost of 22 carat gold, the opposite parties had charged the cost of metal lost during making jewels under the head of wastage and it ranged between 5% to 15% and in addition to that the 1st opposite party had also charged a nominal amount towards hall-mark charge and only the levy of these excess amounts, under the caption wastage and hall-mark charge is being challenged by the appellant branding them as against the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
4
8. It is pertinent to note, at this juncture, that it is not the case of the complainant himself that there were some defects in the quality and quantity or standard in respect of the gold purchased by him and equally it is not the case of the complainant that there was some sort of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the only grievance as stated above is that the opposite parties had collected excess amount over and above the price of goods purchased by him which would attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. Hence, the only provision which the complainant could invoke is section 2(1) (c)
(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is reproduced below;-
(iv) a trader or the service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the services mentioned in the complaint, a price in excess of the price;-
(a) fixed by or under any law for the time being in force ;
(b) displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods;
(c) displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the time being in force;
(d) agreed between the parties
10. The learned District Forum has held that there was no law fixing the price at which gold jewels could be sold and hence a situation mentioned in section 2(1)(c ) (iv)
(a) is not available here and also the situation stated in section 2(1)(c )(iv) (b) and (c) is also not available as it is not the case of the complainant that the goods were sold in packages or price list was displayed in the shops of all the opposite parties. Similarly, 5 the situation stated in section 2(1)( c) (iv) (d) cannot also be pressed into service by the complainant in as much there was no allegation that the complainant and the opposite parties had agreed to sell and purchase the jewels at a particular price.
11. Hence, all the 4 contingencies spelt out in section 2(1) (c) (iv) are not made out by the complainant. All the invoices/bills exhibited by the complainant would not show that there were no hidden charges in the price of the goods sold.
12. Even though the 3rd opposite party had specifically stated in its written version that the price of the gold either 22 carat or 24 carat is not fixed by the Government or any other authority and it is the Jewellers Association that fixed the said rate on daily basis. In addition to the basic price of the gold the jewelry shop owners would charge the cost of yellow metal lost during the process of making jewels and that is shown in the invoice in a separate column under the caption wastage.
13. The learned District Forum has accepted this defence and recorded the findings to that effect as well. In spite of that the appellant/complainant is not in a position to cite before us any order, rule or regulation fixing the price at which only the gold ornaments either 22 carat or 24 carat could be sold.
14. Hence, in the light of the discussions held above, we hold that the opposite parties had not violated any of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
15. The learned District Forum had held that a single complaint against all the three opposite parties based on three different and distinct causes of action is not maintainable. We are also of the same view that a single and composite complaint 6 against all the three opposite parties on the basis of several distinct and different causes of action is not maintainable in law.
16. The learned District Forum has recorded these findings and dismissed the complaint of the complainant and as such we do not find any defect or irregularity in the order of the learned District Forum and this point is answered accordingly.
17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
S.M.MURUGESSHAN, K. BASKARAN,
MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
Index: Yes/No
TCM/SCDRC/Madurai Bench/Orders/Feb/2018