Back
Kangra Consumer Commission Orders Kapoor Jewellers Heirs to Return 32g Gold and Pay Rs 35K
Heirs Held Accountable for Deceased Jeweller's Unfulfilled Promise
The has ruled that family members who take over a deceased jeweller's business cannot sidestep obligations owed to customers. In a decisive order, the Commission—comprising President Hemanshu Mishra and Members Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur—directed the heirs of late Sanjay Kapoor, proprietor of Kapoor Jewellers at Paprola, to return 32 grams of gold to complainant Raj Kumar, along with ₹25,000 in compensation and ₹10,000 in litigation costs.
A Trusted Transaction That Turned Sour
The dispute traces back to , when Raj Kumar—who enjoyed longstanding family and business ties with the late Sanjay Kapoor—handed over two old gold kadas weighing 32 grams to the shop. The expectation was straightforward: melt the old gold and craft a new pair of kadas weighing 40 grams with a modern design, with delivery promised within two months.
Despite repeated visits, the execution was perpetually postponed. Matters took a complex turn when Sanjay Kapoor passed away in . His son Mohit Kapoor and widow Meena Kumari stepped into the business, while his brother Om Parkash was also alleged to be connected to the firm. When the complainant approached the family either to collect the promised new ornaments or reclaim his original 32 grams of gold, he was met with delay and, finally on , a categorical refusal.
Denials All Around, But Evidence Speaks
Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 (Mohit Kapoor and Meena Kumari) contested the complaint on grounds, flatly denying any transaction with Raj Kumar. They asserted that no gold was ever received and no receipt issued, suggesting that if any dealing had occurred, it was purely personal to Om Parkash.
Opposite Party No. 3, meanwhile, claimed he had been employed with the at Banjar, Kullu since 1993, had no connection with his late brother's jewellery business, and accused the complainant of fabricating the story to grab gold and money.
The Commission found these denials collapsed under the weight of documentary proof. The receipt marked Annexure A-1 established the transaction beyond doubt, and a record of the complainant's repeated—and unanswered—calls (Annexure A-2) corroborated his attempts to secure a resolution.
A Pattern of Consumer Exploitation
In its legal analysis, the Commission made several pointed observations. It held that
"as
who took over the business operations of the late Shri Sanjay Kapoor, Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 cannot escape their liability."
The defence of Om Parkash regarding his employment elsewhere was similarly rejected: it
"does not absolve him from the collective liability of this family-run business concern."
Perhaps most strikingly, the Commission underscored that this was not an isolated lapse. It noted that
"various other similar complaints are either pending or have been disposed of by this Commission against the Opposite Parties, reflecting a continuous pattern of consumer exploitation,"
citing a comparable matter—Consumer Complaint No. 326/2025—decided against Kapoor Jewellers on
.
The Verdict and Its Implications
Concluding that
"the retention of the complainant's gold without delivering the promised ornaments or returning the raw material amounts to a
,"
the Commission allowed the complaint in full.
The Opposite Parties are directed to return 32 grams of gold to Raj Kumar within 60 days of receiving the order, in addition to paying ₹25,000 as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience, and ₹10,000 toward litigation costs.
The ruling carries significant weight for consumer protection in family-run enterprises: when business operations pass to after a proprietor's death, liability for prior consumer transactions travels with the business—not just with the individual who once ran it. It also signals that repeated complaints against the same entity will be treated as evidence of a systemic pattern, strengthening the case for aggrieved consumers seeking redress.
