State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Santosh Kumar. vs Om Sai Jewellers. on 1 May, 2023
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No.: 11/2020
Date of Presentation : 10.01.2020
Order Reserved on : 26.04.2023
Date of Order : 01.05.2023
. _____
......
Santosh Kumar son of Shri Prem Dass, resident of Village
Shastri Colony, Ghumarwin, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District
Bilaspur, HP
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Om Sai Jewellers, Bus Stand Road, Gandhi Chowk,
Ghumarwin, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, HP
......Respondent/Opposite Party.
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma, Member
Hon'ble Mr. R.K. Verma, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the Appellant: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent: Mr. Suneet Verma, Advocate
vice Mr. Umesh Kumar,
Advocate
Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
ORDER
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Santosh Kumar versus Om Sai Jewellers (F.A No.11/2020) Instant appeal is arising from order dated 27.11.2019 passed by learned District Forum Una, Camp at Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur in Consumer Complaint No.132/2016 titled Sh. Santosh Kumar versus Om Sai Jewellers.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that for a marriage function, the complainant ordered the ornaments of gold from opposite party on 23.03.2015. Rate of gold per 10 gram was agreed at Rs.25,000/-. Rs.20,000/- were paid in advance by the complainant. The ornaments were required by the complainant before the marriage.
The grievance of the complainant is that when he visited the shop of the opposite party as per his assurance, he started demanding higher rate of April 2016 and not supplied the ornaments as agreed. The complainant was compelled to purchase ornaments on higher rate from other jewellery shop under compulsion. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The opposite party in its reply has not disputed that the complainant placed order of ornaments on 23.03.2015 and advance of Rs.20,000/- was paid. It is also not disputed that 10 2 Santosh Kumar versus Om Sai Jewellers (F.A No.11/2020) grams of gold rate was agreed to be Rs.25000/-. It is contended that the ornaments ordered by the complainant were ready and as per the rate, the total cost of ornaments was Rs.2,87,600/- and labour cost was Rs.62600/-. The complainant had demanded to supply the ornaments on credit but it was agreed between the complainant and the opposite party that ornaments shall be delivered on payment of balance outstanding cost of ornaments. Ornaments are still ready with the opposite party. Due to illegal act of the complainant, the opposite party has suffered financial loss. There is no deficiency in service.
4. A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and reiterating those of the complaint was filed by the complainant.
5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the learned District Forum below partly allowed the complaint.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Ld. District Forum, the complainant has filed the present appeal before this Commission.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant/complainant had ordered gold ornaments on 23.03.2015 at the rate of Rs.25000/- per ten gram. The 3 Santosh Kumar versus Om Sai Jewellers (F.A No.11/2020) complainant had also made advance payment of Rs.20000/-. The appellant/complainant is not satisfied with the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the learned District Fourm directing the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. Ld. Counsel further submitted that appellant be awarded with Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost and Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation and prays that the appeal of the appellant be allowed.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and prays that the same be dismissed. FINDINGS
9. Admitted facts emerging out of the pleadings of the parties are that the opposite party is running a goldsmith shop.
10. It is also an admitted fact emerging on record that the appellant/complainant put the order for gold ornaments and paid Rs.20,000/- in advance.
11. It is also an admitted fact emerging on record that the rate of gold per 10 gram was settled between the parties at Rs.20000/-.
4
Santosh Kumar versus Om Sai Jewellers (F.A No.11/2020)
12. It is also an admitted fact emerging on record that ornaments were to be prepared by the respondent-opposite party by the month of April, 2016.
13. Simpliciter argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that while passing the impugned order, the ld. District Commission below has not awarded compensation and litigation charges is devoid of any merit on the following grounds:-
i) The appellant/complainant except his self serving affidavit has not placed on record any conclusive proof to establish that the ornaments were not prepared by the respondent/opposite party as per the assurance given by him.
ii) The complainant has not placed on record the bill of other ornaments purchased by him under compulsion, as alleged by him in his complaint.
iii) On the other hand, the version of the respondent-
opposite party that complainant demanded the ornaments on credit basis is duly supported by the proof affidavit Annexure R- 2 of his salesman namely Sh. Sanju and proof affidavit Annexure R-3 of one Sh. Vinod Kumar.
iv) Both of them in their proof affidavits have specifically deposed that complainant asked the opposite party 5 Santosh Kumar versus Om Sai Jewellers (F.A No.11/2020) to give ornaments on credit to which the opposite party refused. No ill-will or enmity has been attributed by the appellant to the aforesaid witnesses of the respondent-opposite party. Therefore, we have reasons to believe their statements.
14. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Commission below and the impugned order does not require any interference by this Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
15. Certified copy of this order along with original record be sent to District Forum below and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion. Certified copy of order be sent to parties and their counsel(s) strictly as per Rules. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President Sunita Sharma Member R.K. Verma Member pkw 6 Santosh Kumar versus Om Sai Jewellers (F.A No.11/2020) 7