D.O.F:22/10/2022
D.O.O:21/09/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.261/2022
Dated this, the 21st day of September 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
P.K. Pramod Kumar,
CPCRI, PO-Kudlu,
Kasaragod – 671124. : Complainant
And
Al-Ameen Time Centre
Sales and Service
Muncipal Shoping Complex,
Old bus stand, MG Rod
Kasaragod - 671121.
(Adv: A. Gopalan Nair) : Opposite Party
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The brief facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a wrist watch from the shop of opposite party on 21/10/2022 for Rs.850/-. The opposite party denied to give a bill even though the complainant asked for a bill. On the day of purchased itself, the complainant came to know that the watch was not functioning properly. The complainant showed the watch in a repairing shop and came to know that it is duplicate and local made. The next day itself, the complainant approached opposite party and asked for the bill and to take back the said wrist watch. But opposite party denied to give the bill, and take return of the watch. The opposite party was not ready to exchange the newly purchased watch also. Due to the adamant attitude of opposite party, the complainant sustained physical and mental agony. The complainant is seeking refund of the price of the watch with a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
The opposite party filed written version. According to him, the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable at law. The complaint is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. The opposite party is a shop and there is no specification as to who is the authorized person in the Cause title. The opposite party is the total stranger to the allegation made in the complaint and has no connection with the alleged transaction. The opposite party denied the averment that the complainant has purchased a wrist watch worth Rs. 1,200/- from opposite party for a consideration of Rs. 850/-. There is no sale of such a wrist watch to the complainant. The opposite party again denied the averment that the complainant had asked for a bill and the opposite party refused to give the bill saying that it was taken to sale tax office and promised to give the bill the next day. It is denied that the complainant had bought different items from the opposite party. There has been no sale or money transaction between the complainant and opposite party. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had approached the opposite party at 10.35 am to get the bill and the opposite party refused to give the bill. When the complainant asked to take back the watch, the opposite party claimed that they never take back items once sold. The complainant then asked the opposite party to exchange the watch for another one of a different company and that he will pay any amount if needed in excess. The opposite party was not ready for it also is false and fabricated. The aim of this complaint is to harass and tarnish the reputation of the opposite party. Therefore, the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the complainant was cross-examined by opposite party counsel as PW1. No documents produced. The opposite party submitted that they have no evidence. Heard both sides. The main issues raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a wrist watch from opposite party for Rs. 850/-. On the day of purchase itself, the watch was not functioning properly. So, the complainant showed the watch in a repairing shop and came to know that the said watch is duplicate one and local made. The very next day itself, the complainant approached the opposite party to get the bill. But opposite party refused to give the bill. The complainant asked opposite party to take back the watch. But the opposite party hesitate to take back the item once sold. The complainant, who is working in CPCRI, raised such a complaint against opposite party for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as he sustained loss and severe mental agony due to illegal act of opposite party. Rejecting to issue a bill to the customer amounts to unfair trade practice. We gone through the deposition of the complainant and found that complaint is genuine. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party as the sold item was defective on the day of purchase itself. The opposite party set a time but the watch stopped soon proves the watch was defective. When a customer approaches him with a newly purchased product, the opposite party is bound either to cure the defects or replace it. But the opposite party was not ready to heed the complaint of the customer increases the seriousness of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. As the opposite party was not ready neither to cure the defect of the watch or take back the watch caused severe mental agony and loss to the complainant. The complainant is a lay man unaware of legal formalities. He is entitled for relief. He is entitled to get refund of the price of the watch with compensation. In Sona Guptha V/S Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd-III (2020) CPJ 81 (NC). In this case, no evidence has been filed by the complainant to prove his case even opposite party has not adduced any evidence to disprove the allegation of complainant. Hence opposite party No.2 is ordered to take back the phone and pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant in Sona Guptha’s case.
Here the prayer of the complainant is to refund the price of the watch with a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant’s prayer is genuine. The complainant had shown the watch to a repairing center. If he had produced a report from an expert to the effect that the watch was duplicate and local made. He would have entitled for the compensation claimed in the complaint. In the absence of an expert report, we holds that an amount of Rs. 2,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case.
In the result, complaint is allowed directing opposite party to refund Rs. 850/- (Price of the watch) with a compensation of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The complainant is hereby return back the watch on receiving the amount.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Witness cross-examined
PW1 – P. K. Pramod Kumar
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
