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

The Proprietor, Kulathunkal Fashion Jewellers v/s Susan Alex

    APPEAL NO.347 of 09
    Decided On, 29 September 2009
    At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
    For the Appearing Parties: K.L. Narasimhan, Advocate.

Judgment Text

The appellant is the opposite party in CC.32/08 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to refund the cost of the ornament ie; a sum of R.670/-. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. It is also ordered that on payment of the above amounts he can take back the ornament.

2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a Padaswaram of silver from the jewellery of the opposite party on 21.12.06 for her six months old baby on payment of Rs.670/-. According to the petitioner after some months the colour of the ornament changed. It is made out of sub standard material and not pure silver. The opposite party had agreed to exchange the ornament or to pay the price of the same. But subsequently, he demanded another Rs.300/- for exchange. In reply to your lawyer notice he had promised to pay the cost of the padaswaram and compensation. Although complaint was filed before the Kottayam Taluk Legal Service authority the opposite party did not appear. She has sought for refund of the amount with interest at 18% and Rs.5000/- as compensation.

3. The opposite party denied even the sale of the padaswaram. It is also contended that silver ornaments change colour on account of chemical reaction.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits and Exts.A1 to A4 and MO 1.

5. The Forum has considered the evidence adduced. The Forum has relied on Ext.A1 lawyer notice for which no reply has been sent. It was also noted that there is no possibility of change of colour on account of sweat reaction as it was worn by a child. We find that there is no p

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
atent illegality in the order of the Forum and hence there is no scope for admitting the appeal. The order is quite reasonable. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limine.