State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Divya Divakaran vs Shanu .V.S on 29 February, 2016
Daily Order KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.186/2014 JUDGMENT DATED 29/02/2016 (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.09/11 dt 3/3/2014 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam) PRESENT: SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER APPELLANTS: Divya Divakaran, Vengalikkalam House, Kumarakom, Kumarakom P.O., Kottayam, Kerala. Divakaran, Vengalikkalam House, Kumarakom, Kumarakom P.O., Kottayam, Kerala. (By Adv: R. Rajesh) Vs RESPONDENT: Shanu.V.S., S/o. Abdul Khader, Vazhemadathil Jewellery, Central Junction, Kottayam, Kerala. (By Adv: D.R. Rajesh) JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Dis-satisfied by the dismissal order in C.C.No.09/2011 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam the complainants preferred this appeal.
2. The 1st complainant is the daughter of the 2nd complainant. The complainants purchased 118.290 gms gold ornaments from the opposite party on 12/11/2010 for the marriage of the 1st complainant for an amount of Rs.2,72,753/- including manufacturing charges. The complainants paid Rs.2,00,000/- on 12/11/2010 and the balance amount to be paid in 2 instalments, on 20/11/2010 for Rs.50,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.22,753/- within 45 days and entered into an agreement in writing. It is stated in the complaint that two signed blank cheques and two signed blank papers were obtained from the 2nd complainant. The rate per gram of gold was fixed at Rs.1,890/- which is the market rate of the gold on 12/11/2010 including manufacturing charges. The allegation of the complainant is that the actual value of 118.290 gms of gold ornaments would come to Rs.2,23,568/- and the opposite parties collected excess amount of Rs.49,185/- it is asserted in the complaint that the 1st complainant is liable to pay only Rs.23,568/. The complainants caused a lawyer's notice dated01/12/2010 demanding to return the blank leaves and signed blank papers after accepting Rs23,568/- from the complainants. On receipt of the notice the opposite party replied that they are entitled to present the cheque leaves before the Bank if the amount of Rs.72,753/- was not paid to the opposite parties. The complaint is filed to return the cheque leaves and signed blank papers on receipt of the balance amount of Rs.23,568/- from the complainant. A cost for Rs.3,000/- also claimed by the complainant.
3. Before the Forum Below the opposite parties filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. It is admitted that the complainant purchased gold ornaments worth Rs.2,72,753/- and an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs was paid by the complainants and the balance amount to be paid in instalments on executing an undertaking. The complainants agreed to pay the balance amount in two instalments out of which an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 20/11/2010 and the balance amount of Rs.22,753/- on 27/12/2010 and issued two cheques to the opposite party. No blank papers or cheque leaves received from the complainants. The rate per gram of gold on 12/11/2010 including manufacturing charges was Rs.1,890/- is not correct. The manufacturing charges for gold ornaments varies on types of ornaments depending on the fashion and make. Further the opposite parties are entitled to collect value additiontax of gold ornaments at the standard rates and it was fixed as 17% on the date of purchase made by the complainant. The value addition and sales tax amounts are part and parcel of gold ornaments purchased by the complainants. The opposite party claimed the amount entitled towards the balance purchase amount due from the complainants. No blank cheque leaves or blank signed papers obtained from the complainants. The complainants are liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.72,753/- to the opposite party.
4. No oral evidence adduced by both parties and filed affidavit and documents marked as Exbts: A1 to A4.
5. Both the counsels heard in detail and we have perused the records. It is an admitted fact that the complainants approached the opposite party to purchase 118.290 gms of gold and paid Rs.2,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.72,753/- in two instalments to be paid on 20/11/2010 and 27/12/2010. The issuance of two blank cheques and two signed blank papers to the opposite party was denied. The rate per gram on 12/11/2010 was @ Rs.1,890/- which does not include manufacturing charges. The allegation of the complainant is that the rate per gram includes manufacturing charges whereas the opposite party asserted that the manufacturing charges, value addition charge are in addition to the rate per gram of the gold. It is also stated that the making charge varies according to the type of ornament or make of the ornament. In this case, the complainant paid only Rs.2 Lakhs is an admitted fact and the balance amount of Rs.72,753/- was due to be paid as per the estimate issued by the opposite party. To contradict the contention of the opposite party the complainant produced Exbt. A2 showing that the rate per gram of the gold is only Rs.1,890/- and the value of gold comes to Rs.22,756.40. It is clear from the document that it has not included the value addition tax in Exbt.A2. The document produced by the complainant is only an estimate and not a bill. However, the amount in excess charged is sales-tax and the making charge of the ornaments. It is common knowledge that the rate per gram daily is only the value of that gold per gram which does not include the manufacturing charge nor the value addition tax. We are of the considered view that the appellant/complainant failed to prove that there is any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. It is clear from documents that the complainant paid only Rs.2 Lakhs and the balance amount is due to the opposite party. Hence we find no merit in the appeal and also in the complaint.
In the result, appeal is dismissed and no order as to cost.
The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.
A. RADHA : MEMBER
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
Sa.
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO.186/2014
JUDGMENT DATED 29/02/2016
Sa.