District forum directs jewellery store to pay 25K as compensation | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Feb 21, 2017-Tuesday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

District forum directs jewellery store to pay 25K as compensation

chandigarh Updated: Sep 02, 2014 21:15 IST
HT Correspondent
HT Correspondent
Hindustan Times
SAS Nagar

District consumer disputes redressal forum, SAS Nagar, has directed a jewellery store in Phase 9 and its promoter to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation to a Dhakoli resident for deficient services and unfair trade practices.

Disposing of a complaint filed by Ramesh Chander Khurana and his wife Shanta Khurana, the consumer forum directed Lotus Jewels private limited and its distributor-cum-promoter RK Saini, also a resident of Dhakoli, to refund Rs 1.86 lakh invested by the couple along with 9 percent interest.

Khurana, a retired government officer, became a member of a scheme floated online by Lotus Jewels after retirement and became its franchise. Khurana contended that the couple, allured by Saini, made investments worth Rs 1.81 lakh under various schemes.

According to these schemes, they couple was to get jewellery of their own choice out of a list of products provided by the store. They even purchased some jewellery, rebate vouchers as well as some post dates cheques.

Khurana had alleged that for one of the schemes, a 15-months party club scheme, Saini had collected six instalments of Rs 2,500 each but only issue receipts against five. The complainants had then sought a refund of the scheme amount but were told that as the scheme had been for the purchase of jewellery, the amount can be adjusted only against them.

He alleged that while the store had assured them that the Rs 60,000 invested by them would be refunded with interest, the amount was never returned.

The consumer forum, which proceeded ex-parte against Lotus Jewels Pvt Ltd and RK Saini, held on August 22, “The act of the Lotus Jewels and Saini is nothing but an act of deficiency in service in accordance within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Their non-appearance in this forum only shows that they have nothing to say. The act of non refund of valuable property of the complainants is an act of unfair trade practice.”