Jan.19: SETTLED IN COURT
- Posted by CERC India
- Posted in JANUARY
Mumbai jeweller in the dock for selling â€˜lucklessâ€™ ring
Suvarna Gems and Jewellery in Mumbai employed a soothsayer who convinced people to buy certain gems promising that they would bring luck. Bhaskar Raut was persuaded to buy a ring paying Rs. 18,000. When his luck did not change after wearing the ring for 15 days he went to the shop and demanded his money back.Â But the staff persuaded him to try another gem.
When the second gem too did not bring about a change in his fortunes, Bhaskar went back to the shop. He was told that only if he bought some product worth Rs. 10,000 would the store return the Rs. 18,000. Aggrieved, he approached the consumer forum against the unfair trade practice.Â
The consumer forum said the store had cheated the customer by playing â€œmind gamesâ€ with him. Â It penalised the jewellery store for making fake assurances just to sell its wares.Â It ordered the store to pay Bhaskar Rs. 18,000, the cost of the ring, along with compensation of Rs. 30,000 towards mental and physical harassment and Rs. 10,000 as litigation charges.
Point of law
A jewellery store cannot try to sell its wares by giving fake assurances to the buyer.
[Source: The order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Mumbai Suburban District, dated 21July 2018 on Complaint Case No. CC/150/2016]
Flat buyer has to forfeit part of deposit only if he is at faultÂ
Rakesh Anand and his wife Rashmi booked a flat costing Rs. 45 lakh. They paid the builder, Royal Empires, Rs. 8.6 lakh as deposit. Possession was to be given within 21-24 months, but the builder did not even begin construction. Rakesh withheld further payments and asked for cancellation of booking and refund of deposit. When a legal notice failed to yield results, Rakesh filed a complaint before the Punjab State Commission alleging deficiency in service.
Â The builder contended that he could not go ahead with the project as several people, including Rakesh, had not paid the subsequent instalments. Since there had been default in payment by the buyer, the latter would have to forfeit the deposit amount. The State Commission ruled in favour of the builder. Rakesh appealed to the National Commission.Â It issued a notice to the builder but he did not appear.
The National Commission observed that since the builder had failed to carry out construction as per the agreement, Rakesh was justified in withholding payment. It ordered the builder to refund the entire deposit along with 18% interest a year from the date of payment till refund.Â
Point of lawÂ
A flat purchaser has to forfeit part of the initial deposit if he is at fault. But the forfeiture cannot exceed 10% of the amount due.Â
[Source: The order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, dated 9 April 2018 on First Appeal No. 1378 of 2016]