DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.

                                                                                                                      Consumer Complaint N0:112 of 2012                                                                                                                                                                Date of Institution: 30.03.2012                                                                                                                                                                        Date of Decision: 20.10.2015.

Ranbir Sharma CH-616, Patiala House Court, New Delhi-01.

                                                                                                  ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

Helios The Watch Store through authorized signatory Shop No.57/58/59 and 60, MGD Metropolitan Mall MG Road, Gurgaon.

                                                                                                ..Opposite parties

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                  

BEFORE:     SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

                     SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

 SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.

Present:        Sh. Vinay Partap Singh, Adv for the complainant.

                    ShPushpam Jha, Adv for the opposite party

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.       

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he has purchased a Titan wrist watch from the OP for a sum of Rs.5200/- on 08.02.2012. At that time the complainant noticed that it was a defective one and asked the officials of the OP to replace the same. The complainant then purchased another watch but the opposite party raised a bill of Rs.2880/-and the balance amount of Rs.2320/- was not returned to the complainant. However, they pressurized the complainant to purchase another watch for this amount and thus, the above said amount of Rs.2320/- is still with the opposite party. Thus, the opposite party was deficient in providing services to the complainant. He prayed that the opposite party be directed to refund the entire amount of wrist watch with interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the document placed on file.

2                 OP in its written reply has alleged that complainant picked up from the display of Titan make wrist watch worth Rs.5200/- as he liked the particular model as such. The complainant wanted to exchange the Titan watch worth Rs.5200/- with another discounted model worth Rs.2880/- which he had liked and picked up from the discounted section. As the billing system stopped functioning after the shopping hours of the OP,  the amount could not be refunded  and the complainant was advised to collect the remaining amount of Rs.2320/-on the next morning  but he did not turn nor sent any representative on his behalf to collect the said amount. They are still ready to refund the same and thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.

4                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that he has purchased a wrist watch from the OP for a sum of Rs.5200/-. The complainant noticed that it was a defective and requested for its replacement. Then another wrist watch was given to him for a sum of Rs.2880/- and the balance amount of Rs.2320/- was not refunded to him till date.

5                 However, the contention of the opposite party is that they are ready to refund the amount of Rs.2320/- but the complainant never turn up to collect the above said amount. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

6                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that the complainant has purchased a Titan wrist watch for Rs.5200/- which was later on replaced by the complainant with discounted wrist watch of Rs.2880/- and the remaining amount of Rs.2320/- was shown pending  as shown in the Cash Memo dated 08.02.2012. However, the opposite party was ready to refund the same but the complainant did not collect the same. Since the amount remained with the opposite party, therefore, we direct the opposite party to refund Rs.2320/- to the complainant along with interest @9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 30.03.2012  till realization. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation or litigation expenses as he himself is on fault in not getting the amount from the opposite party. The opposite party shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

Announced                                                   (Subhash Goyal)

20.10.2015                                                       President,

                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member