Smt. Preethakumari.K.P. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to take back the watch and to return back the value of watch Rs 2850/- with Rs 5000/- as compensation and cost with 12% interest. The complainant's case is that he had purchased a Pierre Nicole Two Tone Wrist Watch from the shop of opposite party for Rs 2850/- as per bill no.237 on 14.6.04. At the time of purchase, the opposite party made believe the complainant that he will provide one year replacement guarantee and further represented that they will provide the warantee card within 15 days since it is out of stock. But the opposite party was not ready to handed over the same even after the repeated request made by the complainant. Soon after the purchase the nickel strap and the dial of the watch became scratched and colour faded and he is affected skin allergy on using the same. So the complainant had approached the opposite party and informed about the defects and the opposite party made the complainant to believe that he will replace the watch within one week, as there is no stock of the same pattern. Further the opposite party promised the complainant that nothing to worry about the warranty card and the watch will replace even without warranty card. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party several time for replacement of watch and for guarantee card. But the attitude of opposite party was changed and the opposite party abused the complainant and was not ready to replace the watch and to give the warranty card. Hence this complaint. On receiving the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Even though he had acknowledged the same, he was absent and was set exparte. Later on the order against opposite party was setasided and filed version by denying the purchase and bill. Later the opposite party was again set exparte due to his absence. According to the opposite party the bill produced by the complainant is a fabricated document which was created for the purpose of the case. The opposite party had never made a representation to the complainant or toany customer that the opposite party would provide one year replacement guarantee. Further it is also false that warranty card was out of stock and the same was agreed to issue within 15 days from the date of purchase. According to opposite party if the company provides warranty there would be a warranty card and no sale is done assuring future supply of warranty card. The opposite party further submitted that the complainant had purchased a watch for Rs 2425/- as per a bill no.17 during the month of January 2004 and the same was replaced on 1.4.04 and again on 14.6.04 the complainant approached the opposite party for a replacement and that watch also was replaced and the opposite party is only a commission agent of Pierre Nocole and the guarantee was provided by the company and hence the company also is a necessary party. So the opposite party is only a commission agent, he has no liability to replace the watch and hence the complaint against the opposite party is liable to be dismissed. On the above pleadings the following issues are raised for consideration. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief? Relief and cost. The evidence in the above case consists of the chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. A1 to A3. Issues 1 to 3: Ext. A1 is the purchase bill by which the complainant had purchased the watch. Even though the opposite party had disputed the bill in his version, he has not adduced any oral evidence or any contra evidence to prove his contentions. So it can be presumed that the complainant had purchased the watch as per the bill no.237 on 14.6.04. From the available evidence it is seen that the opposite party has failed to provide the guarantee card and to replace the scratched and colour faded watch even within the warranty period. So there caused some deficiency on the part of opposite party and hence he is liable to compensate the complainant by returning Rs 2850 the value of the watch and Rs 1000/- as compensation and Rs 500/- as cost and the complainant is entitled for the same. In the result,the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to return back the value of the watch Rs 2850/-( Rupees two thousand eight hundred and fifty only) and Rs 1000/-( Rupees one thousand only) as compensation and Rs 500/-)( Rupees five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Receiptdt.14.6.04 issued by OP A2.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A3.Reply notice sent by OP Exhibits for the opposite party Nil Witness examined for either side: Nil
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur | 
