SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the value of Rado watch Rs.52,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
The case of the complainant in brief
The complainant had purchased a Rado R12413323100000057131 model watch from OP No.1 dated 16/03/2019 for an amount of Rs.52,000/-. The complainant had purchased the watch being attracted by its advertisement and believing the words of staff of OP No.1. Then the complainant submits that the watch stopped working in the month of September 2020 and the complainant approached OP No.1 on 08/09/2020 and OP No.1 had got it repaired by sending it to OPNo.3 and the same was delivered back to the complainant. Thereafter the watch is worn in the air conditioned atmosphere fog got appeared on the display of the watch and later it got condensed. This problem made it difficult for the complainant to see the time. Thereafter on 01/05/2023 again the complainant approached OP No.1 and OP No.1 sent the watch to OP No.3 for service. After service the watch was delivered back to the complainant on 29/06/2023. At that time the complainant noted that the golden coating of the watch started fading and the colour of the strap got changed by the lapse of time. On 26/09/2023 when the complainant was wearing the watch all of a sudden the case of the watch got broken and fell down without the application of any external force. There after the complainant approached OP No.1 and OP No.1 informed that they cannot get it repaired or replaced as it was broken. On 27/10/2023 the complainant send a registered lawyer notice to OPs demanding to replace the Rado watch or to refund the purchase price. The notice received by the OPs. But they neither send reply nor pay the demanded amount. The act of OPs the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence the complaint.
After receiving notice OPs are not appeared before the commission and not filed their version within time. As such this case came to be proceed against the OPs are set ex-parte.
Even though the OPs have remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by them against the OPs. Hence the complainant was called up on to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 6 documents marking them as Ext.A1 to A6. The complainant was examined as Pw1. So the OPs remain absent in this case. At the end the commission heard the case on merit.
Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice. Ext.A2 is the service history. It clearly noted that 15/10/2020, 27/07/2021 and 16/06/2023 the services provided by the OPs are in free of cost. Ext.A3 is the copy of the registered lawyer notice. As per the notice the complainant demanded the OPs either to replace the Rado R 12413323100000057131 model watch or to refund the purchase price of the watch for Rs.52,000/-. Ext.A4 is the postal receipts. Ext. A5 and A6 are the acknowledgment cards. But after receiving the lawyer notice the OPs are neither send a reply nor paid the amount to complainant. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Under this circumstances we are of the considered view that OPs 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to replace the Rado R 12413323100000057131 model watch to the complainant or refund the value of the Rado watch for Rs.52,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to replace the Rado R 12413323100000057131 model watch to the complainant or to refund the Purchase price (value) of the Rado watch for Rs.52,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.52,000/- carries 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019. After the said proceedings the opposite parties are at liberty to take back the Rado R 12413323100000057131 watch from the complainant.
Exts.
A1 - Tax invoice
A2- Service history
A3-Lawyer notice
A4- Postal receipt
A5&A6- Acknowledgment cards
Pw1-P K Vasudevan-Complainant.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forwarded by order/
Assistant Registrar