By: Sri. Sri. Mohandasan K., President
1. The complainant purchased a watch from first opposite party on 19/03/2022 namely Casio G shop. But within two weeks the watch became defective and on examination it was found the watch was manufactured 2 ½ years back and it was an old stock one. Then the complainant approached the first opposite party to replace the watch. But the opposite party refused to replace the watch and offered to repair under warranty coverage. But the complainant demanded that he not in need of old watch and he is need of a new model watch. But the opposite party denied the demand. Then the complainant contacted Casio All India customer care and they directed to contact with the shop from which the complainant purchased the watch and the customer care had nothing to talk in the matter. Hence the complainant prays for the refund of the cost of the watch and also compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and on receipt of the notice they appeared before the commission and sought time for filing version. The opposite parties were given opportunity to file version within the statutory period. But the opposite party did not file version within the statutory period and so they set exparte. Thereafter the complainant filed affidavit in lieu of evidence along with documents. The documents of the complainant marked as Exts A1 to A4. The matter was taken before the adalth to consider the chance for settlement. But the matter was not settled and so taken for orders.
3. The case of the complainant stands proved through the affidavit in lieu of evidence. The complainant also filed Ext. A1 to A4 to substantiate his claim.
4. It can be seen that from the affidavit and documents the complainant purchased the watch on 19/03/2022 from the first opposite party for his son. Later it was noticed that the watch was manufactured more than 2 years and 9 months before the date of purchase. Then the complainant approached the first opposite party to replace the watch with a newly manufactured one. But the opposite party refused to do the same. So the submission of the complainant is that it is the right of the consumer to get a new watch from the opposite party which stands denied and thereby right of the consumer has been violated by the opposite party. The complainant also submitted that he contacted duly the second opposite party to redress his grievance through the customer care. But there was no result for his attempt. Complainant also submitted that the watch became defective within days of purchase. So from the documents and affidavits produced by the complaint stands proved the case of the complainant. The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Ext. A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is tax invoice dated 19/03/2022 for Rs.15,500/-. Ext. A2 is copy of warranty card. Ext. A3 is also copy of warranty card. Ext. A4 is copy of brochure of the product revealing the cost and date of packing details.
5. In the light of above fact and circumstances we consider the claim of the complainant is genuine and the right of a consumer stands denied by the opposite parties and so we allow this complaint as follows:
- The first opposite party is directed to refund the value of the watch Rs.15,500/- to the complainant
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the defective service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties and there by caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
- The first opposite party is permitted to take back the defective watch from the complainant after compliance of the order.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to pay interest on the above said amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till the date of payment.
Dated this 20th day of December , 2022.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
VPH
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A4
Ext.A1: Tax invoice dated 19/03/2022 for Rs.15,500/-.
Ext.A2: Copy of warranty card
Ext A3: Copy of warranty card.
Ext A4: Copy of brochure of the product revealing the cost and date of packing
details.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
VPH
