NEW DELHI: The Himachal Pradesh state consumer commission has upheld an order directing a jeweller to refund Rs 1 lakh paid by a customer for a gold chain that was never delivered, along with interest, Rs 20,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.Commission dismissed the complainant’s appeal seeking higher interest and compensation, affirming the Shimla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order dated February 17, 2025, in its decision dated October 13, 2026.
Gold chain booking dispute with Ganesh Jewellers
According to the order, the complainant, M R Chauhan, visited Shri Ganesh Jewellers in Shimla on November 4, 2022, to purchase gold. The jeweller suggested that if he paid part of the amount in advance, he could purchase the gold later at the prevailing market price.Relying on the assurance, Chauhan paid Rs 1 lakh by cheque drawn on his UCO Bank account towards the purchase of a 35-gram gold chain priced at Rs 2.15 lakh. The jeweller issued acknowledgement receipt for the payment and assured him that the chain would be made available within two weeks.However, when Chauhan visited the shop later, neither was the gold chain supplied nor was his advance amount refunded. He alleged that the jeweller denied having any knowledge of the booking or the payment. Despite repeated requests, the Rs 1 lakh was not returned.Chauhan also reported the matter to the police on September 12, 2023, through general diary entry No. 18. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, he approached the Shimla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.The jeweller failed to appear despite receiving notice and was proceeded against ex parte on September 11, 2024. The district commission subsequently allowed the complaint and directed the jeweller to refund Rs 1 lakh with 9% annual interest from the date of filing of the complaint until payment, pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for mental harassment and agony, and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.Dissatisfied with the order, Chauhan filed an appeal before the state commission seeking higher interest, compensation and litigation costs. The jeweller did not appear in the appeal either and was proceeded against ex parte on July 21, 2025.
Commission’s finding on gold chain booking
The bench comprising president Justice Inder Singh Mehta and member Yogita Dutta held that the interest, compensation and litigation costs awarded by the district commission were just and reasonable, and found no ground to interfere with the order.The state commission noted that the complainant had paid Rs 1 lakh towards booking a gold chain but neither received the chain nor got his advance amount back. The district commission had ordered a refund with 9 percent annual interest from the date of filing of the complaint, besides compensation and litigation costs.“The grievance of the complainant is that despite receiving Rs.1,00,000/- towards booking of the gold chain, the respondent/opposite party neither supplied the booked gold chain nor refunded the advance amount,” the bench said.The complainant argued that interest should have been awarded from the date he paid the booking amount rather than from the date of filing the complaint. He also sought enhancement of compensation and litigation costs.However, the state commission rejected the plea for higher interest, holding that the district commission’s decision was justified.“No sufficient ground has been made out for awarding interest from the date of payment of the booking amount,” the bench said.It also found no reason to enhance the compensation or litigation costs, holding that the amounts awarded by the district commission were adequate in the circumstances of the case.“Similarly, no cogent ground has been made out for enhancement of the compensation and litigation costs,” the commission observed.The bench concluded that there was no illegality or infirmity in the district commission’s order and dismissed the appeal, affirming the February 17, 2025, order.
Final order
The state commission, in its October 13, 2026, order, dismissed Chauhan’s appeal and upheld the district commission’s directions requiring the jeweller to:
- Refund Rs 1 lakh towards the advance payment.
- Pay 9 percent annual interest on Rs 1 lakh from the date of filing of the complaint until payment.
- Pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for mental harassment and agony.
- Pay Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.
The total amount awarded, excluding interest, is Rs 1.30 lakh. The state commission did not award any additional costs in the appeal.