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

Krishna Adhikary Village Adisapta Gram v/s Branch Manager, Senco Gold Chinsurah Branch

    Revision Petition No. 2084 of 2015

    Decided On, 29 January 2016

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.

Judgment Text

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member(Oral)

1. On 23.04.2012, the petitioner/complainant purchased new gold jewellery having purity of 22 Carats from the respondent. On the same day, she sold old gold jewellery to the respondent. She was charged Rs. 2851/- per gram for the gold purchased by her whereas she was paid Rs. 1768/03 and Rs. 1504/28 per gram for the old god sold to the respondent. The grievance of the petitioner/complainant is that she was not paid the prevailing market price while purchasing old gold from her. This is also her case that as per the market practise, not more than 10% of the prevailing gold price could have been deducted while purchasing the old gold from her. According to the complainant, she again went to the place of the respondent on the next day and sought return of her old gold jewellery. This however, was not acceptable to the respondent. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

2. The complaint was opposed by the respondent. It was stated in the reply that the old gold brought by the complainant was tested by them on a high quality gold testing machine available in their premises and the complainant was paid accordingly as per the terms and conditions fully understood and accepted by her.

3. Vide its order dated 24.06.2012, the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,16,000/- to the complainant for the loss suffered by her, along with compensation quantified at Rs. 50,000/- and cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 5000/-.

4. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 12.06.2015, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.

5. The grievance of the complainant/petitioner is that she was paid less than the prevailing market price while purchasing the old gold from her. In our opinion, the respondent was well within its right in fixing its own price for purchase of the old gold jewellery brought to it by a customer for sale. There is no law requiring a jeweller to purchase the old gold jewellery at the prevailing market price of the new gold or at a specified discount to the prevailing price of the new gold. It is for the jeweller to take a commercial decision as to the price at which he wants to purchase the old gold jewellery and such price may not necessarily be at a discount of 10% to the prevailing price of the new gold. The petitioner/complainant was aware of the gold price prevailing on the date she visited the premises of the respondent, she having purchased new jewellery on that very day. Therefore, if she was not willing to sell her old gold jewellery at the price offered by the respondent, she could have refused to sell her old gold jewellery and taken it to some other jeweller offering a higher price for the said old jewellery. In our opinion, no defect or deficiency on the party of the respondent is made out in offerin

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

g a price which was more than 10% less than the prevailing price of the new gold, while purchasing the old jewellery of the complainant/petitioner. We therefore, find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost. Revision Petition dismissed.