State consumer forum Jewellery firm asked to pay over Rs 10K to Chandigarh resident

The complaint of Harpreet Bansal was dismissed by the district commission, following which she filed an appeal before the state commission.

Before the district commission, Bansal stated that she purchased two gold rings for Rs 43,810 from PP Jewellers and paid Rs 41,230, on July 28, 2019. The rate of 22 carat gold was Rs 3,310 per gram and labour making charges were 6 per cent per gram plus GST at 3 per cent. She gave both rings to the store for minor alteration in size against a receipt. She was informed that, if, during the alteration, 1 mg of extra gold was to be used, then she had to bear the cost for the same.

Advocate Ravi Inder Singh, counsel for Bansal, contended that she collected both the rings on July 30, 2019, and found that the weight of both was reduced to 0.22 grams (amounting to Rs 795) and as such, she demanded a refund which was not paid. Bansal, was agitated as to why excessive amount was charged. The jewellers mentioned the gold weight as 11.41 grams but in actual, Bansal got 11.19 grams of gold. According to her, the GST was charged on 11.41 grams of gold and she only got 11.19 grams which is short of 220 mgs.

PP Jewellers in reply submitted that they never charged the extra amount of Rs 795. Bansal wanted her two rings altered and she was informed that an amount as per actual (approximate charge) was to be charged for the alteration and the charges were between Rs 450 to 500 per ring. It was further stated that Bansal was asked to pay Rs 1000 for both the rings as alteration charges and after adjusting an amount of Rs 795 (refund for the reduced weight), she was asked to pay the difference of the amount Rs 205, but instead of paying the same, she started arguing that she was not liable to pay any amount for the alteration.

The state commission said that, “Notwithstanding the fact that the weight of the rings was reduced by 220 mg, the respondents ought to have refunded the amount to the appellant to the extent the weight of the rings was reduced, which they did not do. Rather the action of the respondents in adjusting the said amount is a clear deficiency in rendering service and also amounted to unfair trade practice on their part.”

“On one hand, the weight of the rings got reduced and on the other hand, the amount for the reduced weight of gold was not refunded. This practice adopted by the respondents should be stopped and curtailed immediately. Had they obtained any written consent from the appellant for the said adjustment, the matter would have been different. They could not do so on their own,” held the commission.

The commission thus directed the jewellers to refund Rs 795 to her and pay a consolidated amount of Rs 10,000 as compensation and litigation expenses.