CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 306/2011
Monday, the 22nd day of July, 2013
Petitioner : Roy Paul,
S/o. Paul,
Pandarappallil House,
Kaipuzha, Kottayam.
( Adv. T.J. Thampy)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Titan Authorized Service Centre,
C.S.I. Complex,
Baker Juntion,
Kottayam - 1
(Represented by its Manager)
2) The Managing Director,
Titan Watches Ltd,
Bangalore.
O R D E R
Sri. Bose Augustine, President.
Case of the petitioner, filed on 26-11-2011 is as follows.
Petitioner entrusted his ‘Fast – Track’ watch Worth Rs.6,000/- for changing its chain on 28-03-2011 to the 1st o0pposite party. And the 2nd opposite party had promised to change the chain and return it within 10 days. But even after repeated requests and demands 1st opposite party had not changed the chain of the watch. On 03-09-2011 the petitioner requested the 1st opposite party to return the watch of the petitioner but it has not returned. And on 07-09-2011 the petitioner sent lawyers notice to opposite parties demanding return of the watch, but they failed to do so. According to the petitioner the act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the petitioner claiming compensation and cost.
1st opposite party filed version admitting that he received the ‘Fast Track’ watch of the petitioner and issued a receipt bearing No.4902 dated, 28-03-2011. At the time of entrustment of watch opposite party’s staff informed to the petitioner that Rs.600/- is to be remitted for changing the chain. According to opposite party to avoid the said payment of Rs.600/- the petitioner deliberately take back the said watch. Opposite party admitted the lawyers notice and replied by offering a new watch. According to opposite parties there is no unfair trade practice on their part. Hence opposite party pray for dismissal of the petition with cost.
Points for determination
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practices on the part of opposite party?
2. Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavits filed by both sides and Ext.A1 to A4 documents on the side of petitioner.
Point No.1
The gist of the case is that opposite party has not return the watch of petitioner which was entrusted to the opposite party for repair. Entrustment of the watch for repair is admitted by the opposite party. There only dispute that petitioner has not entrusted a ‘Fast-Track’ watch worth Rs.6,000/- but the price of the watch entrusted by the petitioner is only Rs.1,995/-. Opposite party submitted that they are ready to return a new watch (Fast Track) worth Rs.1,995/-. Since the opposite party has definite contention that the price of the watch entrusted is Rs.6,000/- they have the bounden the duty to produce the bill regarding the purchase of the watch or else produce a brochure of the manufacture to prove that “Fast Track Watch” should worth Rs.6,000/. Opposite party also not produced any evidence to prove that the entrusted watch is having worth Rs.1,995/-. In the lack of evidence with regard to the price of watch we cannot come to a conclusion that the petitioner’s watch worth Rs.6,000/- or Rs.1,995/-. Without saying act of opposite party in not returning an entrusted watch after repair is an unfair trade practice. Point No.I is find accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the finding in Point No.1 petition is allowed in part. In the result
1.Opposite party is ordered to return the “Fast Track Watch” entrusted by the petitioner after repair or opposite party is directed to give the petitioner a brand new watch manufactured by the same manufacture, same model or pay Rs,3,000/-
2. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.750/- as cost of litigation.
Order shall be complied within one month of receipt of the copy of the order. If not complied as directed petitioner is entitled 15% interest from the date of petition till realization.
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents of the Petitioner:
Ext.A1 : The receipt issued by Titan Authorised Service Centre dtd. 28-03-2011
Ext.A2 : Office copy of lawyer’s notice dtd. 07-08-2011.
Ext.A3 : Postal receipt counter no.1.OP-Code:KK to Titan Authorised.
Ext A4 : Postal acknowledgement addressed to M/s. Tital Authorised Service Centre
Documents of opposite party: Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
