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



P. Gopinathan v/s Alappat Fashion Jewellary, Kochi

    First Appeal No. 279/2006 (Arisen out of order dated 30/01/2006 in Case No. First Appeal No. 534/2005 of District Ernakulam)

    Decided On, 17 February 2010

    At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram

    By, THE HONOURABLE SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For the Appearing Parties: S.Williams, Sandeep T George, Advocates.



Judgment Text

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER


The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 30.01.2006 in C.C.No.534/05 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondent as opposite parties.


The case of the complainant is that on 17.10.2005 he had purchased some gold ornaments from the opposite party. Even though there was an offer of Rs.300/- discount for the purchase of every sovereign of gold from the opposite party till 31.10.2005, they did not give that discount and have charged excess amount as making charges. The complainant had also exchanged 100 gms of gold ornaments, but the weight was taken only as 96.13 gms for which the prevailing price was not given. More over the complainant was not informed about the value addition charges at the time of selecting the ornaments. The complainant asked to return the gold which he had given but the opposite party told that the same was melted and could not be returned. Hence alleging unfair trade practice he filed complaint before the Forum claiming refund of Rs.16,975/- along with compensation.


The opposite party filed version and admitted the purchase of gold by the complainant and contended that an entire transaction was based on Exts. B1 and A1 and the complainant has suppressed to Ext.B1 document. They denied the allegation that they had collected exorbitant amount as making charges and allegation regarding purity of gold. According to the opposite party the complainant had accepted the bill and paid the same after fully satisfying the rate and other matters in the bill. Hence there is no unfair trade practice on their part.


We heard the counsel for the appellant/complainant. There was no representation for the respondent/opposite party. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued for the position that even though there was an offer of Rs.300/- discount for the purchase of every sovereign, he was not given the offered discount and as per Ext.A3 the opposite party is liable to charge at the most 8% as making charges whereas the charges collected from him was more than 18%. It is also his case that though he had sold 100 gms of gold the opposite party had given value only for 96.13 gms and that too at a lesser rate. Thus contending that there was unfair trade practice, the counsel for the appellant/complainant argued for allowing the appeal thereby passing an order in his favour as per averments in the complaint.


On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the documents produced by him we find that as per Ext.A2 the complainant has purchased 156.48 gms of gold in exchange of 96.13 gms. Though the appellant would argue that he has given 100 gms, there is no evidence to that effect whereas in the receipt given by the opposite party, it is shown that only 96.13 gms of gold has been given by the complainant. If the appellant/complainant had any such grievance he would have raise the said contention then and there rather than accepting the calculations and paying the balance amount for the gold jewellery purchased by him. It is also noted that in Ext.A2 some additions are deductions are made for which the complainant has not given proper or satisfactory explanations. It is shown that an amount of Rs.6,542/- has been deducted from the net receivable amount for which also the complainant has not raised any complaints at the time of payment. More over Ext.A3 is a document of another jewellery which cannot have a binding force on the opposite party as it is an advertisement made by a totally different jewellery shop. More over the complaint has not taken any effort to prove that the jewellery items purchased by him from the opposite party lacked purity and in the aforesaid circumstances we are not inclined to accept the case of the complainant that the jewellery that was given to him was of

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

inferior quality. Taking all these into consideration we find that the complainant was not successful in proving his case by giving either documentary or oral evidence to support his case. We also find the Forum has passed the order considering all the relevant factors which need no interference by this Commission. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, thereby the order of the Forum below in C.C.No.534/05 is confirmed.
O R