{"id":237813,"date":"2005-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005"},"modified":"2016-01-17T14:44:24","modified_gmt":"2016-01-17T09:14:24","slug":"akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005","title":{"rendered":"Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta … vs M\/S.Aggarwal Jewellers,Mr.Ajay … on 12 December, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal<\/div>\n
Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta … vs M\/S.Aggarwal Jewellers,Mr.Ajay … on 12 December, 2005<\/div>\n
  \n \n \n \n \n \n NATIONAL  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION\n  \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\nNATIONAL\nCONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION \n\n \n\n  NEW DELHI \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n REVISION PETITION\nNO.3020 OF 2003 \n\n \n\n  \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nAkhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress  Petitioner \n\n Through: President Shri B.S.Sharma, \n\n \n\nSuit No.302, Transit Hostel, \n\n \n\nMata Mandir, \n\n \n\n  Bhopal. \n\n \n\n`\n\n Versus \n\n \n\nM\/s.Aggarwal\nJewellers  Respondent \n\n \n\nThrough : Its\nPartner Shri Raj Mohan Agarwal, \n\n \n\nG-5, Jawahar\nBhawan, \n\n \n\nT.T.Nagar,   Bhopal. \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n BEFORE:  \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n  HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH,\nPRESIDENT \n\n \n\n MRS.\nRAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor the Petitioner : Mr.\nM.S. Ganesh,Sr.Advocate with \n\n \n\n(Amicus Curiae) Mr.Amit\nGupta and Mr.Gautam  \n\n \n\nNarayan, Advocates \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n For the RBI : Mr. H.S. Parihar,\nAdvocate \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor Respondent No.1 : Mr.Ajay Mishra, Sr.Advocate with \n\n \n\n Mr.Deepesh Joshi, Advocate \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor  Union of   India : Mr.Jos Chiramel and Mr.Debo K. Deori,  \n\n \n\nAdvocates \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n Dated :    12th December, 2005  \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n  \u00a0\n\n O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  M.B. SHAH, J. PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 The question in this petition
\nis: Whether the consumers\/purchasers of ornaments of precious metal (gold)
\nshould be left at the mercy of the traders who according to Bureau of Indian
\nStandards (BIS) report, sell 90% of articles which are not in conformity with
\nthe purity declared in the bills \/cash memos? This is stated on affidavit filed on
\nbehalf of the BIS. Imagine the situation where the cash memos do not mention
\nanything about purity! <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 The
\namount involved in the dispute is very small, but
\nthe matter raises a vital question with regard to purity of ornaments of
\na precious metal (gold). Petitioner- Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress, a Registered Consumer Organization
\n(Madhya Pradesh), has raised important
\nquestions with regard to the right of consumers in regard to sale and purchase
\nof gold ornaments. It is contended that under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, consumers have\n<\/p>\n
(i) the right
\nto be informed about the quality,
\nquantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade
\npractice; (ii) the right to be heard and
\nto be assured that consumers interests
\nwill receive due consideration at appropriate forums; and (iii) the right to
\nseek redressal against unfair trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of
\nconsumers.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  It
\nis contended that unless there is a proper trade direction to declare the
\npurity\/quality of the ornaments, illiterate or literate consumers are bound to
\nbe exploited and there is large scale exploitation in such trade\/business. Business in precious metal is increasing
\nday by day and the consumers are exploited to the fullest extent.\n<\/p>\n
 Considering the
\nimportance of the issue involved and its
\nwide spread impact, notices were
\nissued to the (i)
\nUnion of India, (ii) Reserve Bank of
\nIndia and (iii) Director General, Bureau
\nof Indian Standards, to find out any reasonable
\nmethod for protecting the consumers, who
\ncustomarily and traditionally purchase the golden ornaments.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Affidavit by Reserve Bank of    India. \n\n \n\n On behalf of the Reserve\nBank of India, an affidavit is filed by\n<\/pre>\n
the General Manager in the Reserve Bank of India, Department of External
\nInvestments Operations, Central Office, Mumbai, wherein it is stated that
\nReserve Bank of India has set up a
\nStanding Committee on Gold and Precious
\nMetals under the chairmanship of an Executive Director and comprising
\nChief General Manager of Department of
\nExternal Investments and Operations (DEIO), Department of Banking Operations
\nand Development (DBOD), Exchange Control Department (ECD) (recently renamed as
\nForeign Exchange Department (FED), an official each from the Ministry of
\nCommerce and Ministry of Finance, to
\ndeliberate and advise the Government on emerging issues pertaining to
\ngold and precious metals. The Standing
\nCommittee recommended that an organization with the relevant infrastructure and
\ncompetence should monitor and control the purity of gold jewellery
\nsold in   India. As a result, in January 1999,
\nthe BIS was designated by the Government of India as the agency to
\nevolve and operate the hallmarking scheme for gold jewellery. The BIS launched the hallmarking scheme for
\ngold jewellery on  11th April 2000. The main objective of the
\nhallmarking scheme for gold is to protect the public against the fraud of
\nadulteration and low caratage and to make
\nmanufacturers maintain standards for fineness and purity. It is also pointed out that although the
\nhallmarking scheme has made some
\nheadway, it was felt that the consumer
\nawareness level need to be improved and the Committee set up under the Chairmanship of the
\nSecretary (Ministry of Consumer Affairs) to examine the ways and means of securing consumer interest in the marketing
\nof gold products.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Affidavit by the Bureau of Indian Standards
\n(BIS).\n<\/p>\n
  An
\naffidavit has been filed by Mr.A.S. Jamkhindikar, who is working as Scientist  E &
\nDirector with Bureau of Indian Standards, wherein, he has, inter alia stated that :\n<\/p>\n
a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nThe Bureau of Indian Standards [BIS]
\nis a body corporate constituted under the BIS Act, 1986, for harmonious
\ndevelopment of the activities of standardization, marking and quality
\ncertification of goods and for matters connected therewith or incidental
\nthereto. As such the functions of the
\nBureau are, inter alia, to establish, publish and
\npromote in such manner as may be prescribed, the Indian Standard, in relation
\nto any article or process. Most of these
\nstandards are voluntary in nature, whereas, the Central Government can, after
\nconsulting the Bureau, in the public interest, and by publication in the
\nOfficial Gazette, notify any article or process, by way of mandatory
\nrequirement, to conform to the Indian Standard, failing which penal
\nconsequences as provided under the BIS Act, would automatically follow.\n<\/p>\n
b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nThe Bureau has so far established
\nmore than 17,000 Indian Standards, out of which only approximately 100
\nstandards are mandatory under various enactments and Government orders. As far as Hallmarking of Gold Jewellery is concerned, the same is optional. The BIS Precious Metal Sectional Committee
\n(MTD 10) has formulated and published the following Indian Standards on Gold
\nand Gold Alloys :\n<\/p>\n
1. IS1417 Grades of Gold and Gold Alloys,  <\/p>\n
Jewellery \/ Artefacts  Fineness and
\nMarking.\n<\/p>\n
 2. IS 1418 Assaying
\nGold in Gold Bullion, Gold  <\/p>\n
alloys and Gold Jewellery\/Artefacts   <\/p>\n
Cupellation (Fire
\nAssay Method).\n<\/p>\n
 3. IS 2790 Guidelines
\nfor manufacture of 23, 22,  <\/p>\n
21, 18, 14 and 9 carat gold alloys.\n<\/p>\n
 4. IS 3095 Gold
\nsolders for use in manufacture of <\/p>\n
 jewellery.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
c)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nAt this stage it is worth mentioning
\nthat the role and functions of the Bureau under the BIS Act 1986 as an
\nenforcement agency, are extremely limited to misuse of the Indian Standard Mark
\nunder Section 11, misuse of the name of the Bureau under Section 12, failure to
\ncomply with the mandatory requirement of Indian Standard and Mark under Section
\n14, and breach of the terms and conditions of licence
\nunder Section 15, of the BIS Act. Hence
\nI do not admit the contention of the learned Amicus Curie as reproduced in the
\norder dated 28.04.2004 of this Honble Commission that it was the function of
\nthe Bureau to provide for necessary rules and regulations so that the consumers
\nare not exploited by the traders by selling ornaments without disclosing its
\npurity. In fact the Bureau neither has
\nthe powers to formulate any rules or regulations, or the enforcement machinery
\nor infrastructure to carry out any search and seizure operations, investigations,
\narrests, recording of statements of witnesses etc. as are conferred on law
\nenforcing machinery of the State such as the Police force, except to the
\nlimited extent of carrying out inspections and seizures as provided under the
\nAct, for which also the Bureaus Inspecting Officers have to rely heavily on
\nassistance from the Police.\n<\/p>\n
d)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nThe Bureau had in press release,
\nmarked Annexure E to the Submissions of the Amicus Curiae, referred to the
\nConvention on the Control and marking of Articles of Precious Metals signed in
\n1972 by some of the European countries (with some other European countries as
\nobservers apart from Canada). The
\nobjective of the Convention signed in   Vienna by the European countries was to facilitate trade in precious metal
\narticles while at the same time maintaining fair trade and consumer protection
\njustified by the particular nature of these articles. For that purpose a Common Control Marks (CCM)
\nindicating fineness, was introduced.\n<\/p>\n
Each member country agreed to allow goods marked with CCM to be imported
\nwithout further testing and marketing if such articles would normally qualify
\nfor a domestic market.\n<\/p>\n
e)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nThe Convention thus introduced the
\nfirst international hallmark ever. It
\nenabled national assay offices of the signatory countries to apply for a Common
\nControl Mark (CCM) to articles of gold, silver and platinum after they have
\ntested the fineness of the alloys used in the articles. However, the marking of articles of precious
\nmetals with the CCM is carried out on a voluntary basis. Compulsory hallmarking is not required from
\nthe contracting States to the Convention.\n<\/p>\n
The purpose of the Convention was thus primarily to facilitate free
\ntrade in the precious metals and articles made there from between member
\ncountries, on account of the fact that earlier, different European legislations
\non precious metals control hampered the cross border trade seriously.\n<\/p>\n
f)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nGovernment of   India launched the Gold Bond Scheme in 1993.
\nAlmost concurrently, a Committee within the RBI made a comprehensive set
\nof recommendations for an integrated national gold policy. One of the recommendations of the
\nCommittee was that hallmarking of gold jewellery
\nshould be introduced in the country at the earliest as a measure of consumer
\nprotection. The Standing Committee
\non Gold and Precious Metals in RBI, which is chaired by the Governor, RBI and
\nhas participation from Ministries of Finance and Commerce of the Government of
\nIndia, in its 9th meeting held in January 1999 at Mumbai, identified
\nBureau of Indian Standards (BIS) as the sole agency in India to operate
\nHallmarking Scheme of Gold Jewellery.\n<\/p>\n
g)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nBureau of Indian Standards,
\nlaunched its long term scheme in Hallmarking to encourage the voluntary
\nhallmarking of gold jewellery in April 2000. Known as BIS Certification Scheme for
\nHallmarking of Gold Jewellery, it is backed by
\nReserve Bank of   India, with four declared objectives, namely –\n<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Protection of the consumer against irregular gold quality;\n<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Support for export of gold jewellery;\n<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Development of gold based financial products to assist in mobilizing
\ndormant gold reserves in private hands;\n<\/p>\n
and  <\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Development of   India as a reliable gold market center commensurate with its status as the
\nwords largest national gold market.\n<\/p>\n
h)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nBIS Hallmarking scheme is based on
\nthe technical criteria set by the international Convention on the Control and
\nMarking of Articles of Precious Metals (Vienna Convention, 1972), though   India is not a contracting party to the Vienna Convention. The scheme is voluntary, and there is no
\nobligation on Certified Jewellers to hallmark all the
\ngold jewellery that they retail, fabricate or
\nwholesale. The BIS Scheme involves the
\nrecognition of independent entities and organizations to act as Assaying and
\nHallmarking Centres, and the certified jewellers who can use the centers for hallmarking purposes. During the last four years BIS has recognized
\n17 Hallmarking centers (in 10 cities) and certified
\nover 750 Jewellers.\n<\/p>\n
Although most Certified Jewellers are
\nretailers, manufactures and wholesalers are also certified. Plain gold Jewellery
\nhas been hallmarked since June 2000, and gold jewellery incorporating diamonds since September 2001.\n<\/p>\n
i)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nIn the latter half of 2001\/ beginning of 2002, the Bureau jointly with
\nreputed consumer organizations, carried out a general market survey in 8 major
\ncities in India, and purchased jewellery articles
\nfrom 15 jewellers in each city, and sent the same for
\ntesting at the MMTC Assaying Centre, New Delhi.
\nOut of total 120 samples, only 14 confirmed to the purity declared by
\nthe Jeweller in the bills\/cash memos issued to the
\nofficial of the Bureau who had purchased the jewellery
\narticle, posing as an ordinary consumer.\n<\/p>\n
The Bureau in the circumstances, filed complaints initially against 31 Jewellers spread all over the country in whose cases the
\npurity was short by more than 15% of the declared caratage,
\nbefore the MRTP Commission, New Delhi which took cognizance of the complaints
\nand issued notices to the concerned Jewellers.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  To
\ncontain and control the alarming situation in the jewellery
\ntrade in the country, the Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs
\nconstituted a Committee, which had held its meeting on 22.09.2003 when it was decided to collect data on various aspects. The Terms of Reference are as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
(i) Ways and Means to cover the gold jewellery
\ntransacted in Rural Areas which may be around 60-70% of the total trade.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Creation of infrastructure with
\nrespect to availability of Hallmarking Centres at least one in each City\/District of the country
\n(as compared to 17 centres throughout the country at
\npresent) <\/p>\n
(iii) Appropriate
\nlegislation under which Hallmarking can be made mandatory, if so required.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Identification of suitable enforcing\/implementing Agency in the country.\n<\/p>\n
(v) Incentives for
\nencouraging Jewellers to join the
\nHallmarking Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
(vi) Ways and means of bringing consumer awareness about
\nbenefits of purchasing hallmarked jewellery.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Further,
\nin the report of dated 13.4.2004 of Bureau of Indian Standards, it is stated that :\n<\/p>\n
Culturally, the Indian people have a great fascination for
\ngold. It should be recognized that in   India, in common with other Asian Countries, gold has a very important role
\nin our cultural heritage. Gold is considered as a commodity, and not a product.
\nAny form of gold is equal to any other form of gold. It is viewed to be
\nhomogenous and indistinguishable, having no brand or expiry date. As a result,
\ngold demand is not price-elastic. Rather it is prosperity elastic  that is,
\nincrements in household income are generally matched by purchases of more gold.\n<\/p>\n
It is further stated that the Indian consumer is very often
\na victim of irregular metal quality. A
\nbuyer, for instance, will be told that he has bought gold of 22 carats. When he goes to sell or exchange it, he
\ndiscovers that the gold is actually only of 18 carats and many customers have
\nlost money in this way. In   India the emphasis is on high caratage jewellery. It has
\nbeen further stated that on taking cognizance of these aspects the RBI
\nStanding Committee on Gold and Precious Metals opined that introduction of a
\nHallmarking System would not only protect the public from fraud, but also
\nassist exports of jewellery. There is a reference to Convention on the
\nControl and Marking of Articles of Precious Metals singed 1972 by number of
\ncountries. The objective of the
\nconvention was to facilitate trade in precious metal articles while at the same
\ntime maintaining fair trade and consumer protection justified by the particular
\nnature of these articles.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Submissions<\/p>\n
 There is no
\nother affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India. Mr. Jos Chiramel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submitted that under the Consumer
\nProtection Act, the Commission cannot give
\ndirection to the Central Government to have
\nhallmarking or direct the Central
\nGovernment to frame rules so as to
\ncontrol irregular business in the precious metal.\n<\/p>\n
 As
\nagainst this, Mr. M.S. Ganesh, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that under the Consumer Protection Act, any
\nvoluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 [Section 2(b)ii], is
\nentitled to file a complaint; and the
\ncomplaint can be, inter alia, for unfair
\ntrade practice [Section 2(c)(i)]. Therefore, appropriate relief is required to be
\ngranted.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Findings<\/p>\n
 Affidavits
\nfiled on behalf of the BIS and the RBI in terms reveal that the hallmarking of the gold jewellery to protect the consumers is the
\nnecessity. However, there are various
\ndifficulties with regard to the introduction of hallmarking. The highlighted portion reveals that out
\nof 120
\nsamples of gold ornaments, only 14
\nconformed to the purity declared by the jeweller in the bills\/cash memos issued to the
\nofficial of the Bureau who had purchased the
\njewellery articles posing as an ordinary consumer. If this is the position it certainly
\nindicates that approximately
\n90% of the jewellery sold is
\nnot as per the specification
\nmentioned in the cash memo or the bill. If that is the situation
\none has to imagine what would be the fate of the ordinary consumers who are
\nspread over all the country, and, who as a matter of customarily practice or for investment purposes,
\npurchase golden ornaments.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 It is also submitted that a
\nCommittee within the RBI made a comprehensive set of recommendations which included that
\nhallmarking of gold jewellery should be introduced in the country at the earliest as a measure
\nof consumer protection. Bureau of Indian
\nStandards has also launched a scheme for
\nvoluntary hallmarking so as to protect consumers against irregular trade in golden
\nornaments and as a support for
\nexport of gold jewellery. This was
\nalso in recognition of the fact that   India was a reliable gold
\nmarket center for export also.\n<\/p>\n
Despite this, it was pointed out that it was not possible to have the hallmarking mandatory without the required infrastructure. It was also
\nsuggested that in such cases, action under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, can
\nbe initiated against the seller if the purity of the ornament purchased by the
\nconsumer is not of the same purity\/standard as is mentioned in the bill.
\nHowever, it is admitted that considering the
\nalarming state of affairs throughout the country with regard to false
\nrepresentation\/misrepresentation and other unfair trade practices indulged in
\nby jewelers, consumer is at a
\ndisadvantage, but the
\npowers, functions and jurisdiction of
\nthe Fora under the Consumer Protection
\nAct, 1986 to deal with the nature of the
\ncase, may be clarified by a detailed and exhaustive order.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  From
\nthe statements made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government it is
\napparent that a large scale unfair trade practice in sale or purchase of
\nprecious jewellery is prevailing. Consumers are at
\nthe mercy of the jewelers. It is for the Government to protect such consumers.
\nOne of the main objectives of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is to see that
\nconsumer gets information with regard to quality, quantity, potency, purity,
\nstandard and price of the goods. This object of the Act is apparently
\nfrustrated. There may be some difficulties with regard to hallmarking. But,
\nthere cannot be any difficulty in issuing directions or notifications, for the
\ntime being, till the hallmarking is made compulsory, to the jewelers\/gold-smiths to embsoss
\na mark indicating fineness of the ornament. This would give an opportunity to
\nthe consumer to know its purity. Subsequently, at the time of sale or return of
\nsuch ornaments, the consumer can bargain the repurchase price on the basis of
\npurity mentioned thereon. Further, if
\nthe ornament is not of the same purity\/quality as per the mark, then it becomes
\neasy for the Consumer Fora to pass
\nappropriate order. Undoubtedly, it is for the
\nGovernment to see that the rights
\nconferred under the Consumer Protection
\nAct are not made illusory.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 However,
\nwe accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India that reliefs, which can be granted under the provisions of
\nSection 14 of the Act, are limited. No doubt Section 14(f) empowers the Fora to issue an order directing the opposite party to discontinue unfair
\ntrade practice, but it would be difficult for us to grant such relief
\nin general terms. Hence the same
\nis not granted.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  In this view of the matter we only observe that it is for the
\nGovernment to protect the consumers and we, at this stage, would not pass any
\norder in general terms as prayed for. We
\naccept the contention that we are having limited jurisdiction. Hence, we leave it to the discretion of the
\nGovernment to take appropriate action so as to give relief to the consumers as
\na whole and not to leave them to be victims of unfair trade practice. We add that for various reasons simplicitor
\nawareness on the part of the consumer
\nmay not serve any purpose, and, in most of the cases, consumers, for various difficulties, are avoiding to
\napproach the Consumer Fora.\n<\/p>\n
  \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Findings on Facts:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 The
\ncase of the complainant is that he had paid Rs.2,700\/-
\non 16.12.1997 for purchasing a gold ring
\nhaving purity of 23 carat. For that purpose, respondent jeweller had issued a cash memo. However, on the cash memo there was an endorsement to
\nthe effect that in case of return
\nof the ornament, 80% value of the price shall be refunded. Complainant, therefore protested against such cash memo by
\ncontending that it is in violation of the provisions of the Consumer Protection
\nAct, 1986 and the Monopolies Restrictive Trade Practice Act, 1969. To the said letter, the jeweller
\nreplied on 2.1.1998 that the statement made by the complainant that the purity of
\nthe gold used in the ring was only of 18.4 carat was incorrect and that the
\npurity of the gold was 23 carat. It was
\nalso stated that even though the purity is 23 carat, 80% of the value of the ring was to be
\nrefunded because the remaining 20% is
\ncopper and other alloys as the same is used
\nas connecting material (tanka). Hence,
\ncomplainant filed complaint case No.15\/99 before the District
\nForum,   Bhopal contending that jeweller was adopting
\nunfair trade practice. Similar ring was also
\nsold to one Mr. K.L. Pandey
\nand Ms. Urmila Pandey.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  The
\nDistrict Forum allowed the complaint and directed the jeweller
\nto supply 23 carat new ring to Mr.B.S.Sharma and Mr.K.L.Pandey in place of the old one and to pay a compensation of Rs.5000\/- to Mr. B.S. Sharma. It also directed the jeweller
\nto abandon all kinds of unfair trade practices in future with a direction to
\nmention exact purity of the ornament in the cash memo sold by him.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Against
\nthat order the jeweller preferred appeal No.1630\/2001 before the State
\nCommission. By the impugned order dated  10th July, 2003, the State Commission allowed the appeal by observing that repurchase of
\nthe ring at 80% of its value of the gold was not indicative of purity of gold.
\nWhile making golden ornaments some addition of other metal is necessary. In addition to this, labour
\ncharges are required to be added and the ornaments become ready for sale after proper polish. Therefore, the order of the District Forum was neither
\npractical nor lawful.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order passed by the State
\nCommission by filing this revision.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Ajay Mishra, leanred
\nSenior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the order passed by the State
\nCommission is just and proper. A small
\nring was purchased by the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
He further submitted that the
\npurity of gold ring was 23 carat but in addition the amount was charged for inputs like labour
\ncharges, sales tax, cost of
\nunrecoverable linkage used to
\nmake ornament, labour required to be paid for
\nrefining and reclaiming gold, wastage or impurity developed due to use and
\nexposure of the metal. It was pointed
\nout that the complainant has agreed to the
\ncondition that the respondent\/jeweler
\nwould repurchase the article at 80% of its value and that it does not mean that the gold used
\nfor manufacturing the ring was of 18.4 carat i.e. 80% of 23 carat. 20% of the sale value was to be deducted at the time
\nof repurchase from the consumers for meeting the charges as mentioned above. It is also pointed out that even petitioner has filed an alleged
\ntesting report dated 27.4.2000 issued by the Gwalior Bullion Laboratory wherein the purity of
\ngold was shown as 21 carat. No
\ndoubt, the respondent has disputed the
\naforesaid report by stating that a small portion of the ring purchased by B.S.
\nSharma was tested and that the contents
\nof the entire ring was not tested, no affidavit of the person who gave the
\nreport was filed. No report was obtained
\nby the District Forum as contemplated under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Considering
\nthe cash memo, it appears that the jeweller
\nhas not stated that the golden ring which was sold, was of 80% purity. The bill only mentions that the article which
\nwas sold would be purchased at 80% of its price. This may be because of labour charges and other expenses are excluded while
\nrepurchasing the ring. Secondly, the
\ntest report upon which the complainant relies, reveals that the gold was having 21 carat
\n(87.5%) purity. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the State
\nCommission on facts only requires some modification.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  In
\nthe result, the impugned order passed by the State Commission is partly
\nmodified. In exercise of power under Section 14(f) of the Consumer
\nProtection Act, it is directed that in future respondent-jeweller shall emboss a mark indicating its quality\/purity
\nbefore selling the ornaments.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Secondly,
\nwe observe that simplicitor awareness on the
\npart of the consumer will not serve any
\npurpose. Therefore, till the hallmarking
\nis made compulsory, Government can issue appropriate directions under the
\nprovisions of various Acts, to see that before sale of the gold\/precious
\narticles, it should contain its own identification mark of quality\/purity.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  With
\nthese directions, the petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 We
\nappreciate the zeal with which the petitioner has taken up the genuine issue
\nfor the benefit of
\nthe consumers at large. We also
\nappreciate the assistance rendered and pains taken by Amicus Curiae-learned
\nSenior Counsel, Mr. M.S. Ganesh and others.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
J.\n<\/p>\n
 (M.B.SHAH) <\/p>\n
 PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
 (RAJYALAKSHMI
\nRAO) <\/p>\n
 MEMBER <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta … vs M\/S.Aggarwal Jewellers,Mr.Ajay … on 12 December, 2005 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 REVISION PETITION NO.3020 OF 2003 \u00a0 \u00a0 Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress Petitioner Through: President Shri B.S.Sharma, Suit No.302, Transit Hostel, Mata Mandir, Bhopal. ` […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237813","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nAkhil Bhartiya Upbhokta ... vs M\/S.Aggarwal Jewellers,Mr.Ajay ... on 12 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta ... vs M\/S.Aggarwal Jewellers,Mr.Ajay ... on 12 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-17T09:14:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta … vs M\\\/S.Aggarwal Jewellers,Mr.Ajay … on 12 December, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-17T09:14:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4018,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005\",\"name\":\"Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta ... vs M\\\/S.Aggarwal Jewellers,Mr.Ajay ... on 12 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-17T09:14:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta … vs M\\\/S.Aggarwal Jewellers,Mr.Ajay … on 12 December, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta ... vs M\/S.Aggarwal Jewellers,Mr.Ajay ... on 12 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta ... vs M\/S.Aggarwal Jewellers,Mr.Ajay ... on 12 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-17T09:14:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta … vs M\/S.Aggarwal Jewellers,Mr.Ajay … on 12 December, 2005","datePublished":"2005-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-17T09:14:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005"},"wordCount":4018,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005","name":"Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta ... vs M\/S.Aggarwal Jewellers,Mr.Ajay ... on 12 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-17T09:14:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-upbhokta-vs-ms-aggarwal-jewellersmr-ajay-on-12-december-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta … vs M\/S.Aggarwal Jewellers,Mr.Ajay … on 12 December, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237813","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=237813"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237813\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237813"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237813"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237813"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}