DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

P.D. Wadhwa, H.No.1177, Phase-5, Mohali – 160059.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

[1] M/s Titan Industries Limited – Titan Eye +, SCO No. 50, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh.

[2] Sumit Singh, Manager, Titan Eye +, SCO No. 50, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh.

[3] Sashi Bhusan Singh, Area Manager, Titan Eye +, SCO No. 50, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                    PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Ajay Wadhwa, Auth. Repre. Of complainant.

          Sh. H.S. Saini, Counsel for OPs.

PER DR.(MRS)MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

         The complainant has filed the present complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. The Complainant was offered a gift by his son & daughter-in-law on his marriage anniversary due on 30^th July, for which he selected and ordered a new specs with OPs on 24.07.2010, to be delivered on 27.07.2010, but the OPs did not deliver the same on the said date and rather, delivered it on 13.08.2010, along with invoice of some other sale order with insurance cover of one year. Since the frame became tight after fitting of lenses and the glasses did not suit him and creating continuous headache, the Complainant approached the OP No.2, who told that Tony make bigger frame was not available in the showroom and as soon as it would reach, he would replace the frame, as well as lenses free of cost. After one month i.e. 13.09.2010, when the Complainant approached OP No.2 for the purpose, he suggested that he had arranged another frame of Titan make and as soon as he would get the Tony make frame, he would replace it free of cost, since it was an insured article. OP No.2 thereafter, issued another tax invoice and refund voucher to keep the same for accounting purpose only. It was alleged that thereafter, the Complainant visited the OPs number of times to get his original Tony make frame, but no plausible justification had been given by the OPs. Hence, this complaint.

2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3.         The OPs in their written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that pursuant to an order placed by the Complainant for spectacles on 24.07.2010, the same was to be  delivered on 29.07.2010 and not on 27.07.2010, as alleged. The Complainant approached the OPs on 05.08.2010, with problem in the size of the lenses, which were replaced on 13.08.2010 as a goodwill gesture, even though the OPs were not at fault, as the lenses were measured and prepared as per the requirement of the Complainant. It was further pleaded that the frame never gets tight. The Complainant again in the same month approached the OPs with problem of nose marks, for which the nose pad was replaced, free of cost. However, on 3.9.2010, when the Complainant approached the OPs, with the same nose problem, he was asked to choose for a new frame, since the size required by him was not available in Tommy Hilfiger frame. The Complainant himself selected Titan frame worth Rs.4935/-, which after the Scheme discount of 25% would cost Rs.3701/-. Accordingly, after taking due approval from the company on 13.09.2010, for the new order against old order, the replying OPs issued a credit note of Rs.1572/-, with a validity of 6 months to the Complainant. The replying OPs in order to maintain the good will at every step assisted the Complainant. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.         We have heard the authorized representative of the Complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record.

6.         The contention of the Complainant that “Tony” make Specs, which were ordered by his son and daughter-in-law qua Annexure-1, as a present on his marriage anniversary due on 30^th July, was not only delivered late, but much after the due date i.e. 13.08.2010 (Annexure-2 & Annexure-3). The original sale order was accompanied by one year insurance cover, as well. Thereafter, after lot of pursuasion, the OPs arranged another frame of “Titan” make (Annexure-4 & Annexure-5), instead of “Tony” make frame, with the assurance that the original “Tony” make frame will be given, as soon as it will be in their stock.   

7.         The OPs admitted that the specs were delivered on 13.8.2010, as alleged by the Complainant. They denied that whenever he has approached the OPs with any problem regarding specs, his grievance was addressed promptly. The OPs asserted that at every step, they had assisted the Complainant to maintain the goodwill.  

8.         In view of the facts of the present case as well as documents placed on file by both the parties, it is a clear case of ambiguity, as is evident from the receipt (Annexure-1), on which Sale Order No.TCHS04552 was different to that of Sale Order No. TCHS004602 mentioned in Annexure R-1, placed on record by the OPs. So much so, the invoices (Annexure R-1 to R-3) are not duly signed by the customer/Complainant. Only Annexure R-4, which is a receipt (Credit Note) issued by the OPs, bore the signature of the Complainant.

9.         Now, it is proved beyond doubt that the OPs were utterly negligent and deficient in rendering proper services to the Complainant. It was a case of unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs, as the Complainant neither got the specs of Tony make, nor was given delivery on the date of occasion (Marriage Anniversary), for which it was ordered. The act and conduct of the OPs, therefore, did not resemble the traits of a fair trader.  

10.       From the above detailed analysis of the entire case, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint must succeed. So, we accept the complaint and decide the same in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. The OPs are directed to provide new specs with “Tony” make frame, along with proper fitted lenses, forthwith, without charging anything. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant, jointly and severally, towards litigation costs and compensation for physical harassment, as well as mental agony caused to him. This order be complied with by the OPs, within one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which, they shall pay the awarded amount along with penal interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 19.05.2011, till the date of realization. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.  

11.       Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Pronounced

18.10.2011                              

[P.D. GOEL]

President

[Rajinder Singh Gill]

Member

[Madanjit Kaur Sahota]

Member