INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD vs L S Lalitha

THIS is an appeal filed against the judgment of the Hyderabad District Forum which dismissed a complaint filed by Smt. P. Hanuma of Hyderabad wherein she alleged that M/s. Meena Jewellers, Hyderabad, sold her gold jewels containing impurity and that she was made to pay even for the impurity at the same rate as gold.

SMT . Hanuma, according to the complaint, purchased a pair of ear -tops and a ring together weighing 4.600 grams at Rs. 300/ - per gram from M/s. Meena Jewellers on August 14, 1989. The relief the complainant sought for the refund of the money collected for the alleged impurity content of the ornament and a further amount of Rs. 500/ - towards damages. » She complained that the purity of the gold was not clearly and specifically mentioned on the ornaments and also in the bill. It was argued on her behalf that the marking of 22/18 on the ear -top does not specify whether it was of 22 carat quality or 18 carat quality.

THE opposite party had denied that there was any impurity not disclosed by the makers and that the gold rate was collected for the alleged impurity also.

THE appellant made the following further submissions before this Commission: (1) No purity was indicated in the bill. (2) Purity mark of 22/18 found on the ear -top does not specifically say whether the ornament is of 22 carat purity or 18 carat purity. (3) As the purity was not specified the rate of Rs. 300/ - per gram charged was not verifiable. (4) As the ornaments are ready -made and not made to order collection of making charges of Rs. 125/ - each for ear -top and the ring was not correct. The respondent in their counter filed before this Commission stated that the purity of the ornaments was not marked in the bill at the request of the complainant. It was stated that the marking on the ear -top clearly indicated that it was of 22 carat purity. The rate of Rs. 300/ - charged was the market rate on that day and the same was verifiable. The respondent also averred that it was necessary to collect making charges whether the ornament was made to order or ready -made as the artisans who made it had to be paid for the work.

THE District Forum found no substance in either of the allegations of the complainant, who is the appellant herein, and therefore dismissed the petition.

THE statement of objects and reasons of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 underlines the right of the consumer to be informed of the quality, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices. The respondent in this case did not mention the purity of the ornaments in the bill and by marking 22/18 on the ear -top, made the quality ambiguous. The Consumers right to be correctly informed of the purity standard was thus imparled. If ''tunkum'' is used in making the ornament and thus the caratage is reduced, the purity or standard of the gold should have been clearly mentioned on the ornament and in the bill. Making any statement whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which falsely represents that the goods are of a particular quality or standard, or materially misleads the public concerning the price, amounts to unfair trade practice. We consider that this way of marking two purities on the ornament amount to unfair trade practice. We are unable to believe the version of the respondents that the purity was not mentioned in the bill at the specific request of the complainant. The second column in the bill clearly provides for mentioning of the purity of the gold used in the ornament. The marking of purity on the ornament is invisible except under a magnifying glass. In such circumstances, failure to mention purity or standard of gold in the bill and collecting price as if it is 22 carat gold is nothing but an unfair trade practice. By marking the purity of the gold as 22/18 carat on the ornament and not mentioning the purity of gold of gold in the bill, it amounts to imperfection or shortcoming in purity or standard. Therefore, it is a defect.

HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we have to determine the compensation to be awarded to the appellant against the respondent towards the loss suffered by the complainant due to the unfair trade practice.

IN or view the respondent, for his failure to correctly inform the complainant of the actual purity of the gold used in the ornaments shall pay an amount of Rs. 500/ - to the complainant by way of compensation. As regards the making charged the jewellers have the right to fix the rates as the same depends on the workmanship of the ornament. If the customer feels that the charges are on the high side or are not justified, he has every right to refuse to buy. So also, we do not find force in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the respondent had charged gold price for the alleged impurity in the gold of the ornaments.

THE appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. Appeal allowed. _