TRIBHUVANDAS BHIMJI ZAVERI Vs. RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition arises from the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi. The grievance of the petitioner is that both the District Forum as well as the State Commission have fallen into the error in failing to appreciate that while receiving the gold back they were merely complying with the directions contained in the order of the District Forum in an earlier case which order was never challenged and had become binding on the petitioner. The case of the complainant-respondent was that he had purchased certain gold ornaments from the petitioner on 3rd September, 1991 weighing 59.1 grams and he was charged the price of the gold at the rate of Rs. 404/- per gram which was then the market rate for 22 Ct. gold as published in the newspapers. It was a condition of sale by the petitioner that if the purchaser wanted to re-sell the same ornaments, those would be repurchased by the petitioner at the prevailing price of gold ornaments at the time of resale.

(2.) IT is alleged by the respondent-complainant that he wanted to resell those very ornaments back to the petitioner on 4th December, 1992 and although the published rate of the gold ornaments as per the newspaper report gold ornaments of 22 Ct. purity was Rs. 390/- per gram, he was paid at the rate of Rs. 370/- per gram, thereby under-paying the complainant at the rate of Rs. 20/- per gram. The petitioner has pointed out that subsequent to the original sale of the gold ornaments on 3rd September, 1991, there was the decision of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I in Case No. 728/1991 against the petitioner, already referred to hereinabove, wherein they were directed that the price of gold in gold ornaments should be worked out taking the base as 24 Ct. purity and reducing from that price a value of upto 2 Cts. i.e. rate of 24 Ct. purity is to be the basis and it should be divided by 12 and 1 / 12th should be reduced from the price of 24th Cts. According to the petitioner they have been following that basis for determining the cost of 22 Ct. A cash memo was also produced before us wherein they have sold 22 Ct. gold by working out the price in this manner, whereby they have sold the gold at the rate of Rs. 372 / - per gram when the price of 24 Ct. was Rs. 404/- per gram. This cash memo is also relating to the same date as the date on which the complainant had gone to re-sell his ornaments. We find that the rate charged from customers purchasing gold ornaments was not at the rate of Rs. 390/- per gram but Rs. 372/-. In this view of the matter and in view of earliere decision against the complainant, it appears that there is no unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service. Both the District Forum as well as the State Commission have fallen into error in not taking into account the decision rendered by the District Forum in earlier case against the present petitioner and the fact that the ornaments have been repurchased by the petitioner at the rate which has been calculated and worked out in accordance with that judgment which is binding on the petitioner.