NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Himachal Pradesh has directed a jewellery business and its operators to return 32 grams of gold to a customer after they allegedly failed to make a new pair of bangles from the gold handed over to them in 2023.The Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its order dated August 3, held the jewelers liable for deficiency in service and directed them to pay customer Rs 35,000.How did the dispute arise?According to the complaint, Raj Kumar had family and business relations with the owners of Kapoor Jewellers at Paprola. On September 1, 2023, he handed over two old gold kadas weighing 32 grams to the jeweller to melt them down and make a new pair of kadas weighing 40 grams in a modern design.The jeweller had promised to deliver the new ornaments within two months. However, despite several visits, the work was allegedly delayed on different grounds.After Sanjay Kapoor, who was running the business, died in 2024, his family members took over its operations. Raj Kumar then approached them for either the new ornaments or the return of his original 32 grams of gold.According to the complaint, the matter continued to be delayed until September 29, 2025, when the jewellers allegedly refused to return the gold or provide the new kadas. He then approached the consumer commission seeking return of the gold, the monetary value of the additional eight grams promised in the new ornaments, compensation and litigation costs.The jewellers disputed the complaint. Two of the opposite parties denied that they had received any gold from Raj Kumar and said they had neither issued an estimate nor a receipt. They claimed that if any transaction had taken place, it was personal to the third opposite party.The third opposite party also denied involvement in the jewellery business, saying he had been employed with the Himachal Khadi Mandal at Banjar, Kullu, since 1993. He alleged that the complainant had made up the story to obtain gold and money.Why did the commission rule against the jewellers?The bench comprising President Hemanshu Mishra and members Arti Sood and Narayan Thakurfound that the complainant had produced documentary evidence proving that he had handed over 32 grams of gold to Kapoor Jewellers for making new kadas weighing 40 grams.It rejected the defence of the first two opposite parties, who had denied that any such transaction took place, and said the receipt produced by the complainant established the transaction.“The defence raised by Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 that no such transaction took place falls flat in the face of the documentary evidence specifically, the receipt marked as Annexure A-1 produced by the complainant,” the commission observed.It added that as legal heirs who had taken over the business of late Sanjay Kapoor, they could not escape liability.The commission also rejected the third opposite party’s claim that he was not connected with the jewellery business because he had been employed elsewhere. It noted that his employment did not absolve him from responsibility in the family-run business and that the complainant had repeatedly tried to contact the opposite parties.“Furthermore, the defence of Opposite Party No. 3 regarding his employment elsewhere does not absolve him from the collective liability of this family-run business concern,” the commission said. It also noted that the opposite parties had failed to respond to the complainant’s calls.The commission further observed that retaining the complainant’s gold without either returning it or delivering the promised ornaments amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It held all the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to return the 32 grams of gold.“The retention of the complainant’s gold without delivering the promised ornaments or returning the raw material amounts to a gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,” the bench further noted.The commission accordingly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to return 32 grams of gold within 60 days. It also ordered them to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.
