Customer bought 'pure' silver but test found 80.95% purity: Consumer commision ordered Lalitha Jewellery to pay Rs 13,000 compensation; here's why

Lalitha Jewellery has been directed to refund an overcharge of Rs 104 and pay Rs 10,000 in compensation after a Warangal consumer commission found that a silver tumbler it sold as 85 per cent pure tested at only 80.95 per cent at an independent hallmarking centre.

The order was passed on 17 July 2026 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Warangal, in a case filed in March 2025.

What Did Lalitha Jewellery Sell?


The complainant purchased a silver tumbler from Lalitha Jewellery Mart Limited on 16 January 2025, paying Rs 2,650. The tax invoice, marked as Exhibit A-1 before the commission, declared the purity of the silver at 85 per cent.

Ten days after the purchase, the complainant got the tumbler independently tested at Century Hallmarkings. The test report, dated 27 January 2025, found the actual silver purity to be 80.95 per cent, a shortfall of 4.05 percentage points from what the invoice stated.

The complainant also paid Rs 50 towards the cost of getting the item tested.

How Was the Overcharge Calculated?

The commission worked out the excess amount collected with precision.

The prevailing rate of 100 per cent pure silver on the date of purchase was Rs 97 per gram. At the declared purity of 85 per cent, the applicable rate per gram would be Rs 82.45. The tumbler weighed 26.530 grams.

Based on the actual tested purity of 80.95 per cent, the shortfall in silver content worked out to 1.074 grams. Multiplied by Rs 97 per gram, the excess amount collected from the complainant came to Rs 104.

The commission directed Lalitha Jewellery to return this Rs 104 along with the Rs 50 testing charge.

What Did Lalitha Jewellery Argue?

Lalitha Jewellery contested the complaint on several grounds. It argued that the billing was transparent and in line with standard trade practices, and that the invoice clearly reflected the total price including silver value, making charges, and taxes.

On the purity gap, the company's counsel argued at the time of final arguments that the variation between declared and actual purity was within permissible limits. However, the commission noted that no admissible evidence or expert witness was produced to support this contention.

The commission also found that the invoice itself did not separately disclose the net weight of silver, details of other metals mixed in, making charges, or wastage charges. It held that Lalitha Jewellery was under a legal obligation to furnish all these particulars in the invoice and that non-disclosure could not be excused by calling it general market practice.

On this, the commission stated directly: no trader can justify an illegal or deceptive practice on the ground that it is being followed and accepted in the market.

Is This About More Than One Tumbler?

The complainant also raised a separate allegation about a deposit scheme called Dhana Vandhanam, which he had joined with Lalitha Jewellery in August 2023, paying a first instalment of Rs 2,500. He alleged the scheme was being run without government approval and stopped paying after the first month. After the eleven-month tenure ended, he redeemed the amount and used it toward the purchase of the tumbler, paying the remaining balance.

The commission, however, found that the complainant did not place documentary evidence on record to establish that the scheme required statutory approval and had not obtained it. This allegation was not proved and was not upheld.

On the purity shortfall and invoice non-disclosure, the commission ruled against Lalitha Jewellery. It also noted that the complainant was free to approach the Central Consumer Protection Authority under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, regarding the company's newspaper advertisements, which the complainant had alleged made false representations about purity, quality, and price.

Lalitha Jewellery Consumer Court Order

The commission directed Lalitha Jewellery to refund Rs 104 as excess amount collected and Rs 50 towards testing charges. It further ordered payment of Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 3,000 towards litigation costs.

All directions are to be complied with within 45 days of receipt of the order.


Check the case judgement here: