Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that complainant is the owner  of CASIO WRIST WATCH with serial no. EF-556-SG-7AV and wearing since November December 2014. It is stated that during the course of its usage, the crown of the wrist watch cracked and accordingly on 13.08.2015 complainant visited OP2 for repair of the watch. It is further stated that complainant was attended by Mr. Vishal Goswami Sales Representative. It is stated that on 1308.2015 vide repair slip no.INC001-0401508117108, customer reference no. 2836, the OP2 booked the complaint for repairing of the crown and watch would be delivered within 30 days after the repair.
2.  It is stated that after few days OP2 called the complainant on his mobile phone and intimated that the repair cost would be around Rs.3200/- and on enquiry it is informed that as per the intimation received from the OP1 the gears of the wrist watch has broken and same shall be replaced  with new machine. It is stated that complainant agreed for the repair but also asked for return of the damaged part  to the complainant. It is further stated that after repair complainant received the watch alongwith invoice dated 22.09.2015 bearing no. INC-001-RRC-2212 and paid Rs.3240/- to OP2. It is stated that OP1 being the manufacturer has repaired and OP2 being authorized dealer rendered its services to complainant. The complainant also received the damaged part.
3. It is stated that  complainant got checked the repaired  damaged part in the local market wherein it was transpired that gears of the watch are perfectly fine and the crown needs to be replaced which shall cost Rs.60/-. It is further stated that complainant stunt and shocked on hearing this and contacted OPs and apprised the said fact. The  OP1 replied that if watch is replaced from new crown will get slow and during the course of its normal working the same will show in correct time i.e behind the schedule. It is further stated that complainant is still in possession of the original as well as damaged/replaced part and till date both the watches are showing the same time without inaccuracy even a single minute, however, it appears that in order  to cause  wrongful loss to the complainant the OP have  changed/replaced the machinery by misrepresenting the true facts.
4. It is stated that OP1 has deliberately changed the machinery of the wrist watch knowing fully  well that there is no fault in the product as communicated to complainant, therefore, committed cheating, breach of trust, criminal mis appropriation of property and causing wrongful loss of money to the complainant to the tune of Rs.3240/-. The OP1 and 2 also engaged in illegal and unlawful trade practice and have rendered deficiency in services.
5. The complainant is seeking direction to  OP1 and 2 to pay the amount of Rs.3240 alongwith interest @ 18% pa, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to complainant and also award litigation charges  and other expenses.
6. OP1 and 2 filed WS and taken preliminary objection that present complaint requires to be dismissed in limine. It is stated  that complainant handed over his casio watch model EF-556-SG-7AV to OP2 because the said watch had stopped working due to the broken and missing crown/cracked due to usage. It is further stated that the watch received at service center of OP1 in New Delhi for inspection and OP2 given the estimate of repair in cost  around 3240/- and only after the complainant agreed for the expenditure the watch was repaired by OP1.
7. It is stated that complainant always had an option to not get the watch repaired from OP1. It is further stated that repairs were carried out and watch was handed over by OP2 to the complainant in perfect working condition and still working in good condition. It is stated that the acts of the OPs do not constitute the deficiency in service or negligence, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that complainant has been guilty of committing perjury before  this hon’ble  forum.
8. On merit all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated. It is stated that it is not within the knowledge of OP2 that complainant was attended  by Mr. Vishal Goswami. It is further stated that OP2 communicated to the complainant that the module of the casio watch was defective  due to broken crown  and estimate for repairing would be  Rs.3240/- and after approval given by complainant the watch was repaired. The complainant received the watch after repair  in working condition. It is false, frivolous, baseless that in local market  damaged  part was checked, the gears of the watch are  perfectly fine and crown needs to be replaced at the cost of Rs.60/-. It is also false, baseless, frivolous that defective  module is still working fine. It is further stated that complainant is intending to take undue  advantage  of his own wrong by twisting the facts.
9. It is stated that at the time of handing over the watch to OPs for repair the watch had stopped working and was dead. The service center of  OP1 is well  equipped with the best of the machineries and highly trained and qualified man power. It is stated that the quality of service provided by the trained technician and the one in the local market cannot be compared on any ground. The staff of OP1 is meticulously trained by the parent company in Japan. It is stated that OPs did not commit cheating, breach of trust, criminal mis appropriation of property and cause wrongful loss of money to complainant to tune of Rs.3240/-. It is stated that there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS and denied all the allegations made therein. The complainant reiterated contents of the complaint. It is stated that complainant is entitled to all the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
11. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of the complaint. Complainant relied on copy of dispatch letter of casio product Ex.CW1/1, copy of bill of casio product Ex.CW1/2, copy of legal notice dated 03.11.2015 Ex.CW1/3, copy of reply of notice dated 25.11.2015 sent by casio Ex.CW1/4 and copy of reply of notice dated 30.11.2015 sent by life style Ex.CW1/5.
12. OP1 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Hiroki Oi Chief Financial Officer and reiterated the contents of the WS.
13. OP2 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Sameer Walia AR and reiterated contents of WS.
14. OP1 and 2 also filed evidence by way of affidavit  of Sh. Vipin Kumar Service Executive. In the affidavit contents of WS facts with regard to condition of casio wrist watch stated prior to repair and after repair.
15. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as by OP1 and 2.
16. We have heard complainant in person. None appeared on behalf of OP despite given ample opportunities to address the arguments. However, we have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of OP-1 & 2.
17. It is admitted case of the complainant that he had approached OPs for repair of his wrist watch make CASIO on 13.08.2015. The representative of OPs prior to repair given the estimate of Rs. 3,200/- for repair of watch as gears of the wrist watch have broken and same required replacement with new machinery. It is admitted by the complainant that after his consent the wrist watch was repaired and Rs. 3,240/- paid by him as per invoice filed on record. The complainant alleged that he later enquired in the local market and came to know that the gears of the watch perfectly working but the crown needs to replace which cost only Rs. 60/-. However, as per record no details of any local market shop or the person who offered to repair his watch filed on record. No documentary evidence filed on record to substantiate that gears were fine and only crown needs to be changed. It is pertinent to mention here that OPs are well renowned  international brand and providing services as per their brand name. The OPs prior to repair of the wrist watch given estimate and also disclosed the parts which are required to be replaced. The complainant given consent to the same. Thereafter the repair of wrist watch was done to the satisfaction of the complainant. The plea and allegations of the complainant are not supported with any evidence, therefore, complainant failed to establish deficiency in service against OPs.
18. On the basis of above observations and discussion present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
19. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  02.04.2024.

      SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER