Traders must issue cash memos indicating the weight and purity of ornaments, and unreasonable deductions at the time of exchange or refund constitute unfair trade practices.

Arati Mohanty Dr., Member—C.D. Appeal No. 548 of 2001 is by the complainant for higher compensation and C.D. Appeal No. 556 of 2001 is by the trader dealing in sale of gold ornaments, against the order of the District Forum, Sambalpur, directing the trader to discoutinue the practice of issuing ROUGH Estimate on sale of ornament instead a regular receipt, delete the arbitrary and unfair terms and conditions for deduction of certain amount at the time of exchange of the old ornaments and to issue guarantee card indicating the detailed break-up for information of the customer in an unambiguous manner, and also to pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses.

2. Complainant’s case in brief is, he purchased one pair of Latkan for his wife Sujata Mishra from the shop of the opposite party-Jeweller on 9.1.2000. The weight of the gold ornament was 3.080 grams and an estimate was issued by the jeweller showing receipt of Rs. 1,520/- towards its cost. The allegation of the complainant is that the jeweller issued only an estimate instead of issuing a cash memo mentioning the detailed break-up of the charges paid for information of the customer. In the foot-note it has mentioned that the gold ornament was of 20/22 carat purity. According to the complainant, this has made the offer vague and ambiguous and brings out instance of unfair trade practice.

3. The further allegation of the complainant is that on the back side of receipt issued by the jeweller the following terms and conditions were printed:

“Terms of Business:

1. Goods once sold cannot be returned. However they can be exchanged (provided they are not used) within a week from the date of purchase.

2. While purchasing our (S.B.) old gold ornaments the following deductions will be made:

1. Making charges.

2. Sales Tax.

3. Stones, Pearls, Beeds if any.

4. Soldering 100 mg. per gram.

5. Ten rupees per gram on the prevailing market rate if cash returned.”

4. The complainant objected to the last two conditions i.e., deduction of 100 mg. per gram and charging ten rupees per gram on the prevailing market rate, if cash returned.

5. The complainant had earlier filed C.D. Case No. 1 of 1998 against the jeweller in the District Forum, Sambalpur, alleging unfair trade practice for mentioning gold purity as 22/20 carat. In that case the jeweller explained the theory of Jhal Patia Soldering in order to escape their liability, but the District Forum did not accept it and held the jeweller guilty of committing fraud and unfair trade practice. It directed that purity of a gold and silver ornaments displayed for sale in the shop should he marked with certainty and sold with guarantee and not in an ambiguous manner.

6. The jeweller filed appeal against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission. The State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum. This was also challenged before the Hon’ble National Commission, but the Revision Petition was dismissed.

7. In this case the jeweller filed a written version denying the allegation of the complainant. He averred that they had not sold any pair of Latkan of 22 carat gold on 9.1.2000. According to them, the receipt is only a rough estimate given to somebody on his asking. Since there was no transaction, there was no question of any bill.

8. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants in both cases and the learned Counsel for the respondent. In our considered opinion the District Forum has taken a right view. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The order of the District Forum is confirmed.

9. The appeal of the jeweller is dismissed. No cost.

Mr. Justice D.M. Patnaik, President.—I have gone through the leading judgment of my learned Sister Dr. A. Mohanty. The facts have been succinctly mentioned therein, considering the importance of this issue, I offer my views.

11. Considering the materials on record and on physical verification of the gold ornament and the original documents, t