Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member

1.       Sukaran Kalia has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations  that complainant purchased an eyewear with the  name and style Lance Bremmer LB F0614A C-3 from the opposite party for Rs. 5680/- on which there was discount of Rs. 2840/- and the complainant had paid the amount of Rs. 2840/- on Feb.6,2016. After few months of the purchase the defect in the eyewear was detected  by the complainant which was irreparable . The complainant approached the opposite party who had taken the eyewear in their possession and had assured the complainant that their product will be replaced in next 10 working days. After 15 days the complainant approached the opposite party , who further told the complainant to come after 10-15 working days. Thereafter the complainant kept on contacting the opposite party but the opposite party was lingering the matter on one pretext or the other . Thereafter the opposite party replaced the pair of eyewears. On 12.10.2016 complainant again approached the opposite party as the eyewear which was replaced by the opposite party was again broken up but the opposite party flatly refused to replace the said article . The complainant vide instant complaint has sought for the following reliefs:-

(a)     Opposite party be directed to replace the eyewear ;

(b)     Opposite party be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2500/-

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was admitted that the complainant purchased eyewear from the opposite party  on 50% discount. It was also admitted that complainant had told the opposite party about the defect in the eyewear and handed over the same to the opposite party for its replacement and accordingly the same was sent to the manufacturer alongwith complaint of the complainant. It was submitted that it took some days in the process of replacement of the said eyewear and there was no fault on the part of the opposite party. However as and when the pair of eyewear was received by the opposite party from the company, the same was replaced and handed over to the complainant to his full satisfaction. However, the complainant told to the opposite party that  the eyewear had broken up and accordingly the opposite party told the complainant that the same will be sent to the company at Kolkata and he cannot say how many days will take place and whether it will be replaced by the company or not. The opposite party himself cannot replace the product at his own . At that time the complainant did not hand over the product  and rather misbehaved with the opposite party. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3.       In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of tax invoice dated 6.2.2016 Ex.CW1 and closed his evidence.

4.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Inderjit Lakhra,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Parveen Aggarwal,Store Manager Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence  on behalf of the opposite party.

5.       From the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that eyewear purchased the complainant became defective which was replaced by the opposite party. But, however, again on 12.10.2016 the eyewear again became defective  but at that time the opposite party has not replaced the eyewear . This fact has also been admitted by the opposite party in their written version by submitting that they had told the complainant that the product will be sent to the company at Kolkata  and they cannot say whether the product will be replaced by the company or not. But, however, the complainant had purchased the eyewear from the opposite party by spending his hard earned money for his convenience . But the product did not give fruitful result to the complainant and became defective twice within few months of its purchase. However, at the time of arguments counsel for the opposite party has made a statement that the opposite party is ready to repair the spectacles of the complainant which offer made by the opposite party is not accepted by the complainant by making a separate statement.

6.       From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to replacement of the eyewear   as the same became defective within few months of the purchase of the eyewear. The complaint as such is accordingly allowed. The opposite party is directed to replace the eyewear of the complainant with new one and in case the opposite party failed to replace the eyewear of the complainant then the complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the eyewear. Compliance of this  order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which complainant is entitled to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 15.3.2017

/R/