SHOBHA CHAUHAN Vs. SATI SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an Appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 14.11.2007 passed by the learned Calcutta District Forum Unit -I in its CDF -1/Case No. 211/2006. The facts of the case briefly are that the Appellant had purchased a ring fitted with emerald for a consideration of Rs. 18,281.85 from the Respondent jeweller on 8.4.2004. Before making the purchase she requested the Respondent jeweller to send the emerald to the Gem Testing Laboratory, Petrology Division, of Geological Survey of India. She advanced Rs. 15,000 for the said ring and emerald on the condition that the emerald would be purchased if the report of the Gem Testing Laboratory was found okay. The jeweller accordingly sent the emerald to the Gem Testing Laboratory, G.S.I. for testing and report. The report contained an observation, "Micro fracture". However, after perusing the report and obtaining necessary explanation from the Respondent jeweller she purchased the ring fitted with the emerald for her use. After expiry of about two years she came to the jeweler with the complaint that since the said G.S.I. report indicated micro fracture in the emerald, the same was not giving the desired result and hence it should be replaced by a good one without any such fracture or flaw. The Respondent refused to take back the said emerald after expiry of two years. Being aggrieved she filed a complaint before the Forum below whereupon the Forum after perusal of the documents and hearing both sides passed an order dismissing the complaint.

(2.) THE Appellant has, therefore, filed the present Appeal with the prayer that the Respondent jeweller be directed to replace the said emerald being defective as indicated in the report of the G.S.I. She contended that the learned Forum passed its order dated 14.11.2007 without due consideration of the facts and the documents placed before it. She further contended that since the report of the Gem Testing Laboratory of G.S.I. clearly shows that there is a defect in the nature of micro fracture, the Respondent should replace the emerald by a new one.

(3.) THE case was heard ex parte since the Respondent did not contest. However, from the written objection filed by the Respondent -OP before the Forum below it is found that the Appellant -Complainant had purchased the said emerald after obtaining necessary report from the Gem Testing Laboratory, which was done by the Respondent jeweller at her instance, she finalized the purchase even after perusal of the report which indicated that the emerald contained micro fracture. In view of the above facts, the contention of the Appellant that the Respondent had supplied her a defective emerald beyond her knowledge is not tenable and this is more so when she comes up with the petition after using the said emerald for about two years.