1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that on 03.10.2015 he purchased one Titan wrist watch bearing no. NF 93245SMOIJ for an amount of Rs. 5,490/- from O.P.No.1 vide invoice no. 7377 dated 03.10.2015.  The allegation of Complainant is that near about 2 months of its use, the said watch stopped its function and became totally defunct, and on 14.01.2016 he handed over the said watch to the O.P.No.1 narrating the defects to him, and on 18.01.2016, the O.P.No.1 returned the watch after repair work was carried out by the O.P. No. 2 alongwith one warranty replacement challan.Further, his allegation is that after 7 days of its use, the alleged watch again stopped its functioning and became totally defunct with same problems. While on approach to the O.P.No.1, he did not pay any heed and refused to rectify and repair the watch.Thus showing the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, the Complainant has filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to deliver same model defectless new wrist watch with fresh warranty or to refund the costs of the watch with 18% interest p.a. and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of litigation.
2. After receiving the notice from this Fora, the O.P.No.1 appeared in this case through his authorized representative and filed his written version admitting the purchase of alleged watch by the complainant and also contended that he is only the retailer and has provided prompt service to the Complainant on his complaint regarding the defects by sending the said watch to the O.P.No.2 for repair and rectified the defects and on 18.01.2016 they have returned the watch to the Complainant without any delay.  Further it is also contended that the Complainant has never visited their showroom for making further complaint of defects in the alleged watch.  Stating the cause of action arose at Jeypore in the District of Koraput, he challenged the maintainability of the case on the point of jurisdiction of this Forum and with other contentions, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.

3.   The O.P. No. 2 appeared in this case and filed their written version admitting the purchase of alleged wrist watch by the Complainant    from the O.P.No.1 and also contended that they have repaired the wrist watch and returned the same to the Complainant as on 18.01.2016.  Further, they have contended that since the Complainant had not lodged any complaint regarding any defects of the alleged wrist watch further to them, as such they do not have deficiency in service and not liable for any compensation.  They have also challenged the maintainability of the case on the point of jurisdiction of this Forum and with other contentions they prayed to dismiss the case against them.

4. Complainant has filed certain documents like retail invoice vide no. 7377 dated 03.10.2015 issued by O.P.No. 1 and warranty replacement challan vide JO No. JO00015415007033 dated 14.01.2016 issued by the O.P.No. 2 alongwith certain affidavits to prove his allegations.  On the other hand, O.Ps have not filed any single documents in support of their contentions except 2 nos. of affidavits.
    
5. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the alleged Titan wrist watch from O.P.No.1 vide retail invoice no. 7377 dated 03.10.2015, and the said watch was got defects within 2 months from the date of purchase, for which he contacted with the O.P.No.1 for its repair.  It is also admitted fact that after receiving the wrist watch from the Complainant, the O.P.No. 1 sent the said mobile for its repair to the O.P.No.2 against which the warranty replacement challan was issued against the alleged watch by the O.P.No. 2 vide no. JO00015415007033 dated 14.01.2016.
    
6. In the present case, the O.Ps have challenged maintainability of the present case on the point of territorial jurisdiction of this Fora, as such prior to going inside the case, first we decided to discuss about the said allegation raised by the O.Ps.  We have carefully gone through the documents filed by the Complainant as well as the respective counters filed by the O.Ps.On close perusal of the documents filed by the Complainant i.e. retail invoice vide no. 7377 dated. 03.10.2015, it is observed that though there is a specific remark in the said invoice mentioning that “Disputes, if any, subject to Jeypore jurisdiction”, but there is nothing in the evidence to show that the attention of the Complainant was drawn to the said condition at or before selling the alleged watch or handing over the retail invoice.There is also no evidence from the side of O.Ps to prove that the condition relating to the jurisdiction was the negotiated contract made between the parties. Further it is well averred by the Opp. Parties that the O.P.No.2 is customer care and service centre of Titan watches for the State of Odisha who undertakes all the customer complaints and repairs and rectifies the defects, which clearly proved that the O.P.No.2 provides their service within the territorial jurisdiction of this Fora also, hence we do not have any hesitation to feel that this Fora has ample jurisdiction to try over the present dispute.Further we have gone through the remarkable verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1986-99 Consumer 4328 (NS), the case between Bhandari Interstate Carriers and another Vrs. M/s A.K. Synthetics, wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Jurisdiction – condition stipulated on the Goods Receipt that “all disputes subject to Delhi jurisdiction” – whether State Commission, Rajasthan had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ? – State Commission held that there was no proof that the condition relating to jurisdiction was the result of a negotiated contract.  The Complainant had not agreed to that condition.  It was further found that the condition that “all disputes subject to Delhi jurisdiction” did not exclude of the State Commission which otherwise it had under the law as a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the State Commission – analysis of State Commission upheld.” Keeping in view of the above verdicts, we feel that the O.P.No.2 have taken a false plea to save their own skin, and the same will not do at any angle.
    
7. Further the contention of O.Ps regarding that the Complainant had never visited to the showroom of O.P.No.1 to lodge any complaint for further defect, but to make it contrary, they did not file cogent evidences like complaint register showing the entry details of customer who makes complaint for any defects in between the date of first complaint made by the Complainant to the date of filing of present case, as such the version of O.Ps cannot be believed.  However, the O.Ps have filed certain affidavits in support of their contentions, which in our view, are only the counter affidavits to the affidavits filed by the Complainant, as such the same cannot make them escape from their liability.
    
8. Further it is observed that since the day when the Complainant went for making complaint for the defects for the second time to the showroom of O.P.No.1, the alleged wrist watch lying unrepaired till today and in this long gap of two years, the alleged wrist watch is of no use.  During the hearing, the Complainant demanded for refund of costs, whereas the O.Ps have suggested for replacement of the watch.  Hence in our view, refund of the costs of the alleged wrist watch is only solution to meet the ends of justice, Further, for non providing better service to their genuine customer like the Complainant, he must have faced some mental agony and physical harassment for which he filed this case incurring some expenses, as such he deserves to be compensated by the O.Ps. Hence this order.

ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No.2 being the manufacturer of the alleged wrist watch is herewith directed to refund the costs of the alleged wrist watch to the Complainant and to pay Rs. 2000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- towards costs of litigation within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order. Further the complainant is herewith directed to return the alleged defective wrist watch to the O.P.No. 2 at the time of complying the above order by the O.P. No. 2.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 9^th day of March, 2018.

Issue free copies to the parties concerned.