Delhi

New Delhi

CC/912/2011

Suman Seth - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Lawrence & Mayo India Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jun 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/912/11                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Ms. Suman Seth,

C/o Sh. Ravi Seth,

R/o G2, Skyline Residency,

# 5 Kingston Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore

……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

1. Lawrence & Mayo India Pvt. Ltd.,

76, Janpath, New Delhi-110001

 

2. Prada Spa,

Registered Office:

Via Antonia Fogazzaro, 28,

20135 Milano, Italia

Through its authorized representative in India

Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd.,

7^th Floor, DLF Building No.9,

DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon                            

                                         ……..OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

Member: S.R Chaudhary

The Complainant purchased a branded optical on 12.11.08 as per Annexure A, due “Bumper Publicity of Branded Product” in the market for Rs.22,600/- beyond the normal price of similar product and guarantee card as per Annexure  B. Complainant got one the arm temple of spectacle got detached within 9 months of purchase & same was handed over to OP2 to either replace or get it repaired. After few days, the said product was returned back to complainant but complainant again got same problem averted on 3^rd week of May 2011. Complainant approached OP1 but OP1 advised to contact OP2 but no solution was worked out. Ultimately legal notice was also sent as per Annexure C and complaint was filed. OP2 proceeded exparte.

The OP1 in its reply & evidence admitted in Para2 that the said product called “Prada” designer optical belong to him but OP1 stated that the said product was sold by OP2 as per admission in Para5 and emphasizes on Condition 9 of the terms and conditions in Para 5 of evidence reproduced as under:

                “Every effort is made by the Company to secure the highest possible standard of excellence, of both material and workmanship but the Company gives no guarantee whatsoever in respect of any goods sold or supplied by the Company and all other conditions, warranties whatsoever are hereby expressly excluded. The Company will not be liable in respect of any claim for any injury, loss or damage caused to any person arising out of the use of Company’s goods.”

 

Further OP1 has alleged that Frame manufactured by Company “Luxotica” but assembled by him & market by OP1 in Para6 of evidence company liability ceases as same as delivery is made.

It appears that OP1 alleges OP2 & OP2 proceeded exparte. The sole liability lies on the shoulder of OP1 who market the product. It is also noticed that defective product was sold to the complainant consequently complainant had to wander here and there to get justice for branded product.

While arguments was heard in open Court, OP1 has admitted that product in question is manufactured and assembled by OP1 which is already mentioned in order sheet dated 06.01.15. A layman consumer does not know who supplies arms/spectacles but he firmly believes in product not on assembling of product process.

Thus, OP1 and OP2, jointly held responsible to refund Rs.22,600/- along with 9% interest from the date of purchase till realization. We also award a compensation of Rs.35,000/- for harassment inclusive of litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

 

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 05.06.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)

MEMBER