Kapoor Jewellers Liable To Return Customer's 32 Grams Of Gold; Legal Heirs Can't Escape Liability: Kangra Consumer Commission

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, comprising President Hemanshu Mishra and Members Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur, has held the legal heirs of a deceased jeweller and another family member jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after they failed to return a customer's gold entrusted for making new ornaments.

The Commission observed that legal heirs who take over the business operations of a deceased proprietor cannot evade liability arising from consumer transactions undertaken by their predecessor.

Facts

The dispute arose when the complainant, Raj Kumar, handed over two old gold kadas weighing 32 grams to M/s Kapoor Jewellers on September 1, 2023. Having longstanding family and business ties with late Sanjay Kapoor, the complainant requested that the ornaments be melted and used to manufacture a new pair of kadas weighing 40 grams with a modern design. Although delivery was promised within two months, the work was repeatedly delayed.

Following Sanjay Kapoor's death in 2024, Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2, Mohit Kapoor and Meena Kumari, took over the business operations. When the complainant sought either delivery of the new ornaments or return of his gold, the opposite parties allegedly refused, prompting him to approach the Consumer Commission seeking return of the gold, compensation and litigation costs.

Contention of the Parties

Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 denied having any transaction with the complainant. They contended that they had neither received any gold ornaments from him nor issued any receipt and argued that, if any transaction had taken place, it was personal to Opposite Party No. 3.

Opposite Party No. 3, Om Parkash, the brother of late Sanjay Kapoor, also denied liability. He asserted that he had been employed with the Himachal Khadi Mandal since 1993 and had no connection with his deceased brother's jewellery business. He alleged that the complaint was a fabricated attempt to obtain gold and money.

Observations and Decision

Upon examining the evidence, the Commission found that the complainant had successfully established, through documentary evidence including the receipt marked as Annexure A-1, that 32 grams of gold had been entrusted to Kapoor Jewellers for manufacturing new kadas. It held that the denial by Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 stood contradicted by the documentary record and observed that, as legal heirs who had taken over the business operations after Sanjay Kapoor's death, they could not evade liability arising from the transaction.

The Commission also rejected the defence of Opposite Party No. 3, holding that his employment elsewhere did not absolve him of liability in what was found to be a family-run business concern. It further noted that despite repeated attempts by the complainant to contact the opposite parties, they failed to respond.

The Commission further observed that the present case was not an isolated instance, recording that several similar consumer complaints against Kapoor Jewellers were either pending or had already been decided, including one decided by the Commission on May 30, 2026. It concluded that retaining the complainant's gold without delivering the promised ornaments or returning the raw material amounted to gross deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties, jointly and severally, to return 32 grams of gold to the complainant within 60 days. It also awarded ₹25,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs.

Case Title: Raj Kumar v. Mohit Kapoor & Ors.

Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. DC/18/CC/399/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order