By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. Complainant entrusted his "Seiko Five' watch for repair to opposite party. At that time opposite party had informed that the defect of showing time can be rectified by cleaning the watch and also told that Rs.60/- would be the charges for repair. The watch was purchased by complainant as it was water proof and had specifically stated at the time of entrustment that it should be returned as water proof. When complainant approached opposite party on 14-5-2009 and enquired he was told by opposite party that Rs.200/- was necessary as repair charges. Complainant then told that he did not want the repair done and requested for return of the watch. Opposite party then was prepared to return the watch which had already been opened for repair. Complainant insisted that opposite party should guarantee that the watch is still water proof even after opening it. Opposite party refused to offer any such guarantee and also behaved in a bad manner. He alleges deficiency in service and claims for Rs.3,000/- as price of the watch and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and hardships.

2. Opposite party filed a detailed version. The entrustment of watch for repair s admitted. It is submitted that the watch was brought to the shop with the complaint that it is not showing accurate time. Opposite party denies assuring that the defect can be repaired after cleaning and that charge will be only Rs.60/-. The defect of an automatic watch can be detected only after thorough check up. That the said watch is not a 'water proof' watch. It is only 'water resistant'. Opposite party admitted that complainant came to the shop on 14-5-2009. the watch was in the process of repair by the technician. On enquiry by complainant regarding the cost of repair he was told that the charge would be Rs.200/-. Then complainant demanded the watch back. Though the technician was ready to return the watch, complainant was not prepared to accept it. He insisted that opposite party should guarantee that the watch is water proof. It is submitted that opposite party is unable to give such guarantee for a water resistant watch. That opposite party has not received any consideration. No service was done. That the complainant did not want the repair done after hearing the cost of repair. That it was the complainant who had behaved in a bad manner to opposite party. The complainant is frivolous and vexatious.

3. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 marked for him. Opposite party filed counter affidavit. No documents for opposite party.

4. Complainant does not allege any specific imperfection in the quality of service rendered by opposite party. The efforts by the Forum to reach an amicable and friendly settlement between the parties failed since complainant was adamant that opposite party should endorse in Ext.A1 receipt that hereafter the watch is water proof. Opposite party brought the watch before the Forum and was wiling to return it to the complainant. Complainant refused to accept it in the absence of guarantee endorsed in Ext.A1 that the watch is returned as water proof. On examination we found that it is seen written inside the dial of the watch that it is 'water resistant'. The claim of the complainant is unsustainable and highly flimsy. Complainant did not pay any consideration and no service was rendered by opposite party. The watch was demanded by complainant even before repairing it. Complainant deposed that he has been using the watch for more than 4 years. He also stated that he does not know the difference between water proof and water resistant. On perusal of evidence adduced by both sides we do not find any merits in the contentions raised by complainant. The contentions does not even give rise to an allegation of deficiency in service. Complainant has failed to establish a case. Complaint is therefore dismissed. Complainant is at liberty to take delivery of the watch from opposite party if he wishes so. No costs.

Dated this 25th day of September, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1

Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the receipt dated, 10-5-2009 from opposite party to complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER