Jeweller takes 32-gram gold from customer, keeps it for 3 years and then denies receiving: Consumer court orders Kapoor Jewellers to return the gold and pay Rs 35,000; here's why

A Himachal Pradesh consumer commission has ordered Kapoor Jewellers in Kangra's Paprola area to return 32 grams of gold to a customer and pay Rs 25,000 in compensation after finding that the jeweller retained the gold for over two years without delivering the promised ornaments and then denied the transaction ever took place.

The order was passed on 3 August 2026 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, in a complaint filed in October 2025.

What happened with the customer's gold?


On 1 September 2023, the complainant handed over two old gold kadas weighing 32 grams to Kapoor Jewellers at Paprola, Kangra, vide serial number 272. The gold was given to be melted and remade into a new set of kadas weighing 40 grams with a modern design. The jeweller, the late Sanjay Kapoor, promised delivery within two months.

Despite multiple visits by the complainant over the following months, delivery was repeatedly delayed under various pretexts. In 2024, Sanjay Kapoor passed away. His family, including his son, widow, and brother, took over business operations of Kapoor Jewellers.

When the complainant approached them seeking either the new ornaments or the return of his original 32 grams of gold, they continued to delay. On 29 September 2025, they categorically refused to return the gold or deliver the new kadas, according to the complaint. The complainant then approached the consumer commission.

Did Kapoor Jewellers deny receiving the gold?

Before the commission, Kapoor Jewellers' son and widow denied that any transaction had taken place between them and the complainant. They stated they never received any gold ornaments and never issued any receipt, and contended that if any transaction occurred, it was personal to the jeweller's brother, who was named as the third opposite party.

The brother, in a separate reply, denied any involvement with Kapoor Jewellers, stating he had been employed with the Himachal Khadi Mandal at Banjar, Kullu since 1993 and had no connection to his deceased brother's jewellery business. He alleged the complainant had concocted a false story to grab gold and money.

Why did the consumer commission rule against Kapoor Jewellers?

The commission found that the complainant had produced a receipt, marked Annexure A-1, establishing that 32 grams of gold was handed over to Kapoor Jewellers on 1 September 2023 vide serial number 272. The commission held that this documentary evidence directly contradicted the denial by the jeweller's son and widow.

On the question of liability of legal heirs, the commission ruled that as legal heirs who took over the business operations of the late Sanjay Kapoor, the son and widow cannot escape liability for transactions entered into by the business they inherited.

On the brother's defence of outside employment, the commission held that his employment elsewhere does not absolve him from collective liability as part of a family-run business concern. The commission also noted that the complainant had attempted to call the opposite parties multiple times but received no response, with call details submitted as Annexure A-2.

Is this the first complaint against Kapoor Jewellers?

The commission noted in its order that this is not an isolated instance. It observed that various other similar complaints are either pending or have been disposed of against Kapoor Jewellers by the same commission, reflecting what it called a continuous pattern of consumer exploitation. It specifically referenced Consumer Complaint No. 326/2025, a similar case decided against Kapoor Jewellers by the same commission on 30 May 2026.

What did the consumer court order?

The commission held that retaining a customer's gold without delivering the promised ornaments or returning the raw material amounts to a gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

It directed all three opposite parties, jointly and severally, to return 32 grams of gold to the complainant within 60 days of receiving the certified copy of the order. In addition, they were directed to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 as litigation costs.

Check the case judgement here: