w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Branch Manager, Senco Gold Chinsurah Branch v/s Krishna Adhikary

    First Appeal No. FA/773 of 2013

    Decided On, 12 June 2015

    At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata


    For the Appellant: Pinaki Roy, Advocate. For the Respondent: Avijit Das, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Kalidas Mukherjee, President

This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Hooghly in case no.CC 77 of 2012 allowing the complaint with cost of Rs.5000/- and directing the OP to pay Rs.1,16,000/- to the Complainant and also to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental agony. The OP was further directed to pay Rs.1 lakh to the SCWF.

The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that she purchased 7.5 gm and 32.440 gm gold from the OP on 23/04/12 having purity of 22 carat valued at Rs.2,851/- per gm. On the same date the Complainant sold 68.990 gm and 12.920 gm gold to the OP for which the gold in 68.990 gm was valued at Rs.1504.28 per gm and 12.99 gm valued at Rs.1,768.03/- per gm which was far less than the prevailing market price. It has been alleged that the OP purchased gold at a less price although while selling gold to the Complainant the OP charged higher price. The receipts were issued by the OP for those transactions. On 23/04/12 the value of gold per gm was more or less Rs.2,900/- and as per the practice of the gold merchants when the old ornaments are sold to them the maximum of 10% is deducted from the price thereof. But the OP while purchasing gold from the Complainant assessed its price at far less amount. For the said reason, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum.The OP filed W.V. contending that it had gold testing machine by which the purity of gold is ascertained and every transaction was computerized. The old gold ornament in its entirety does not contain gold, in as much as, other metals are also mixed with it which is tested by the machine and, accordingly, 'Barchart' are recorded in their shop. The Complainant fully understanding transactions signed in the receipt. The price of gold on a particular date is maintained by the ERP System throughout the country. It has been stated that the allegation raised in the complaint is false.It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant’s organization was 75 years old and every transaction is computerized. It is contended that the transactions are maintained by ERP System and there is gold testing machine for checking the purity of gold. It is contended that there is no expert report as to the allegation raised by the Complainant.It is contended by the Respondent that gold was assessed at 22 carat both at the time of selling to the Complainant and purchasing gold from the Complainant. It is contended that while purchasing gold by the OP from the Complainant the price assessed was much less than the price at which the OP sold the gold to the Complainant.We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. It is the specific contention of the Appellant that it had gold testing machine to assess the purity of the gold and the 'Barchart' is maintained in their shop. It is also the contention of the OP that it is maintained by the ERP System throughout the country as to the price of the gold on a particular date. In paragraph 7 of the complaint it has been stated that while purchasing old gold ornament the gold merchant can make a deduction of 10% to the maximum. Therefore, it is an admitted position that when old gold ornaments are sold to the gold merchants some deductions are made and the alleged ground of showing less price per gm on that particular date as contended by the Res

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

pondent/Complainant, is not acceptable. Moreover, the price of gold on a particular date is maintained by the ERP System. Such being the position, we are unable to agree with the finding of the Learned District Forum. The Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.The Appeal is allowed. We set aside the impugned judgment and order. The petition of complaint is dismissed.