Home »  News »  India »  Mumbai

Jewellery shop owner penalised for selling impure gold

Saturday, 24 May 2014 - 7:35am IST | Agency: DNA

The Mumbai suburban district additional consumer forum has penalised a Ghatkoper-based gold shop owner for selling a consumer 19.40 carat gold after having taken the price for 23 carat gold.

The forum directed the shop owner to pay Rs 25,000 for indulging in unfair trade practices. It also directed the firm to pay an additional Rs 10,000 for the mental agony the consumer went through, and Rs 2000 towards litigation cost.

The entire amount has to be paid with nine per cent interest from 2012.

The case dates back to July 10, 2012, when Anita Chavan, a Prabhadevi resident approached the proprietor of Magic Gold in Ghatkoper to buy a gold bracelet for her brother.

Chavan in her complaint claimed: "On the day, the rate of 23 carat gold per 10gm was Rs 29,500. The owner showed a bracelet weighing 12.550gm worth Rs 37,000. She bought it, but on reaching home, the members of her family asked her to get the purity of the gold verified," reads the forum's order.

She then approached Mahavir Tunch to check the purity of the gold. There it was revealed that the bracelet was of 19.4 carat gold and had only 80.80% gold. To get a second opinion, she approached MG Gold Checkers, a government-approved valuer. It confirmed the above result.

She then brought this to the notice of the shop owner, but he was evasive. Aggrieved by this, she approached the forum and filed a complaint.

The forum after going through the complaint, directed the shop owner to file a reply. The firm, in its reply, claimed complaint was false, frivolous and not based on facts, and contented that it had been filed to extract money from him.

"The firm admitted the complainant had bought the golden bracelet from his shop, but denied he had sold bracelet of impure gold. He also denied he had sold a bracelet of 19.4 carats instead of 23 carats," read the firm's version.

The forum after going through the evidence brought on record, held the firm had engaged in unfair trade practices, and penalised the shop owner.


Jump to comments