D.O.F:07/09/2021

                                                                                                   D.O.O:04/09/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.150/2021

Dated this, 4^th day of September 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA.K.G                              : MEMBER

Abbas Hibathulla

Moidu Kunhi D.M.,

Darjal house, Kubanoor, Bekur P.O.,

Uppala Via

Kasaragod – 671322.                                                                                : Complainant

And

1. Muhammed Rauf

Sales Manager, Sulthan Watches,

Ground Floor, City Mall,

M.G. Road, Kasaragod.

2. Sulthan Watches

Shop No. 1, Ground floor

City mall, M.G. Road

Kasaragod – 671121.

(Adv: Harshitha K.M.)

3. Customer Service

Swatch Group (India) Private Limited

2^nd Floor, 120 Lancer Building

Brigade Road, Ashoka Nagar

Bangalore – 560025.                                                                    : Opposite Parties

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K  : PRESIDENT

            The case of the complainant is that his mother Mariyamma purchased a Rado watch by paying Rs. 3,15,000/-.  It is purchased and presented to his son in law at the time of marriage of her daughter.  On 25/06/2021, it is found not functioning given for service to opposite party.  Time is not displayed due to manufacturing defect.  So, sought refund of its price.

            The opposite party filed written version denying allegations. Opposite party admitted sale of watch.  It is a branded watch originally purchased by Mariyamma.  It is a product of Switzerland.  Physical damage was caused to the watch by fall on ground or hitting on hand object, thus not covered by warranty.  A sum of Rs.23,943.00/- is requested for its service latter reduced to Rs.18,000/-, on refusal watch is returned back.  The opposite party No.2 is only seller, and not liable for any relief sought in the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            Expert commissioner filed his report marked as Ext.C1.  Report shows that if watch falls within one metre height particular damage is not likely to be caused.

            The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined by opposite party.  Ext.A1 to A3 documents marked.  Ext.A1 is the bill, Ext.A2 is warranty card, Ext.A3 is the acknowledgement card and expert report as Ext.C1.  The opposite party filed chief affidavit and cross-examined as DW1.  Ext.B1 to B4 marked.  Ext.B1 is owner manual, Ext.B2 is the copy of decision, Ext.B3 is the estimate, Ext.B4 is the revised estimate.

Following points arised for consideration:

1. Whether the watch suffered the damage by fall or it stopped working due to a manufacturing defect?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service from opposite party?
   Whether complainant is entitled for any compensation?

All points are discussed together for convenience.  Ext.C1 expert report does not say that defect noted to the watch is manufacturing defect.  Report says physical damage is not possible by fall within one metre height.  Manufacturing defect is ruled out since expert opinion and further opposite party agreed to clear the defect provided complainant pay its service charge.  The opposite party agrees that product cover warranty, but since physical damage is caused there is no warranty.

First of all there is no evidence of causing physical damage to the watch by fall.  It suffer from defect is admitted.  It can be repaired by spending the estimated price.

Since there no evidence of causing physical damage.  If covers warranty, opposite party is legally liable to clear the defect without collecting any service charges.  The complainant is not entitled to replacement or refund of its price.  Since there is no evidence of manufacturing defect.  Since opposite party refused to clear the defect insisted for service charges when product is covered by warranty there is any deficiency in service of opposite party, complainant is entitled for compensation.

In the result, complaint is allowed in part.  Prayer for refund or replacement is rejected for reason aforesaid.  The complainant is directed to return the watch to the opposite party within one month of the date of receipt of order and on its receipt, the opposite party is directed to repair/service the product and clear the defect without insisting any service charges from complainant within month of its receipt.  The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the litigation.  The time for compliance within one month from date of service of order to parties respectively.

    Sd/-                                                                                                                    Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1 – Bill

A2 – Warranty card

A3 – Acknowledgement card

B1 – Instruction manual

B2 – Copy of decision

B3 – Estimate

B4 – Revised estimate

C1 – Expert report

Witness cross-examined

PW1 – Mohammed Shahad B.S.

DW1 – Abdulla

     Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

JJ/