IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present:Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH: PRESIDENT F.A. No. 923 of 2024 [Against the order dated 20.12.2023 passed in C.C.No.44 of

2023 by the DCDRC, Chengalpattu].

Wednesday, the 29^th day of January, 2025

1. V.Gopi, Advocate, 2. Mrs. Aarti Prabu, Both are residing at No.36, Nakiran Street, Sri Venkateswar Javuli Stores House, Guduvancheri, Chengalpattu - 603 202. ... Appellants/Complainants - Vs –

Saravana Stores Elite Private Ltd., Rep. by its Director Siva Arul Yogarathanan, 95, G.S.T.Road, Tambaram - 600 045. ... Respondent/Opposite Party Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. V.Gopi Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. Dass & Viswa Associates This appeal came up for final hearing on 08.01.2025 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellants/complainants and the Respondent/opposite party and on perusing the material records, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission made the following:- O R D E R R.SUBBIAH, J, PRESIDENT Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chengalpattu, by an order dated 20.12.2023 passed in C.C.No.44 of 2023, the complainants have come forward with this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

2. The Appellants herein are the complainants and the Respondent is the opposite party before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their respective rankings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chengalpattu.

3. The case of the complainants before the District Commission is that the 2^nd complainant’s marriage was fixed on 21.02.2022 at Guduvancheri Shree Venkateswara Perumal Temple. The 1^st complainant had purchased a Kerala Fancy model 22 ct gold chain from the opposite party shop vide Invoice No.102297/21-22, for a sum of Rs.83,342/- on

18.02.2022, for gifting the same to the Bridegroom. On the date of marriage the first complainant had gifted the said gold chain to the Bridegroom Prabhu. The marriage function was also completed on that day. On the next day evening the complainant’s son-in-law had returned the said Gold chain to the first complainant stating that the said gold chain is of a defective making which caused scratches on the skin around his neck in three places. As a result of which the first complainant was harassed by the family members of his son-in-law in front of his relatives and friends. The complainant had lost his reputation in front of his relatives and suffered loss of money due to supply of defective making of gold chain by the opposite party. The act of the opposite party in supplying the defective gold chain made the complainant to become upset on the whole day. Though the opposite party had charged for wastage of 1.136 grams, the said chain is not in an usable condition. Hence, the complainants went to the opposite party shop on 27.02.2022, with a request to take back the said defective gold chain, but the staffs in the opposite party shop refused to take back the defective gold chain and insulted the complainants. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 17.03.2022. Though notice was served on the opposite party, there was no reply from them till the date of filing the complaint. Hence, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party the complaint has been filed with a prayer to direct the opposite party to take back the defective gold chain and issue a new one without any kind of charges etc., or refund Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants; to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and to pay Rs.12,000/- as costs.

4. The said case was resisted by the opposite party by filing a written version, denying all the allegations of the complainants as baseless. The complainants having purchased the product after thorough checking of the model of the gold chain including its pattern, design, thickness