District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/184/2022
(Date of Filing:-09.09.2022)
- Shri Dipanjan Majumdar
Balagarh Road, House No.385, ‘Udbodhan’
OPP. Of Banamasjid, P.O. Sahaganj,
District:- Hooghly, West Bengal : 712104
Versus -
- The Proprietor,
Mandakini Watch House,
678, G.T. Road,Old Railway Gate,
Beside Serampore Municipality,
Serampore, Hooghly 712201.
- Managing Director,
Casio India Co. Pvt. Ltd.
A-41, 1st floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-1100044 …………Opposite Parties
Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
Mrs. Babita Chowdhuri, Member
PRESENT:
Dtd. 06.12.2023
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with treatment extended by the opposite parties as mentioned pre-page in the matter of purchase of a wristwatch from the OP 1 worth Rs.7800/- the instant case has been filed by the complainant on 09.09.2022, u/s 35(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Bref facts of the case:-
The fact of the case after trimming the unnecessary details is as follows.
The complainant, having been attracted by display of a wristwatch with a Company fitted sticker stating ’10 year battery life’, in the showroom of OP 1 proceeded to purchase the said watch on 28.04.2022.
However, allegedly after making the full payment, OP 1 handed over the watch in Casio Company packing kit which showed the month of packing as 05/2019.
The watch appeared ‘old’ to the Complainant and on being asked, OP 1 reportedly explained that it was a new model. On being satisfied and ‘keeping faith on both the opposite parties’ the Complainant got back home with the newly purchased wrist watch.
The Complainant claims to have purchased by this time ‘Casio Exclusive Membership Programme’ on 30.04.2022 by paying INR 295.00 which was valid till 01.05.2025.
The Complainant on perusal of the ‘Casio Module No.5479’ found there were certain conditions about the battery life. Those were as follows.
- ‘the battery that comes loaded in your watch when you purchase it is used for function and performance testing at the factory’.
- ‘the test battery may go dead quicker than the normally rated battery life as noted in the user’s guide. Note that you will be charged for replacement of this battery, even if replacement is required within your watch’s warranty period.’
However the Complainant was of the opinion that there was lack of clarity and transparency and presence of contradiction so far as the ‘Unique selling proposition of Casio wristwatch with 10-year battery life’ was concerned.
This prompted the Complainant to send e-mails to OP 1 and 2 seeking clarification on the issue that from which date ten year battery life would be counted, from the date of packing or from the date of purchase.
As many as four e-mails are claimed to have been sent to the OP asking them to take back the watch and refund the entire consideration price within seven working days. However the OP did not respond to the same.
Having been thoroughly dissatisfied with the entire development, the Complainant approached to this Commission with a prayer to impose direction on the Opposite parties to make refund of Rs.7800/- and Rs.295/-, pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- , pay interest @2% per month on Rs.7800/- from 28.04.2022 till realization, litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- and further cost of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony.
The Complainant along with the complaint petition has submitted copies of 1) the corresponding invoice, 2) warranty card and the conditions thereof, 3) user guide, 4) mails received from Opposite parties, 5) Product Warranty Certificate and warranty conditions and 6) mails sent to Opposite Parties.
In the evidence on affidavit, apart from repeating his grievances as expressed in the complaint petition, the Complainant reproduces the conditions incorporated in the warranty terms and conditions.
Amongst those it was mentioned that product having Battery Leakage problem shall be treated as out of warranty.
The Complainant was surprised to find the condition contradictory to the ‘Unique selling proposition of Casio Wrist Watch’ with 10 year battery life.
In the brief Notes of Argument the Complainant mentions that when asked for, the Company failed to specify the exact date of manufacturing the watch. From this the Complainant drew the inference that for what span of time the battery was inside the watch was not known to anybody. Naturally in these circumstances the battery would not last for ten years.
The Complainant agitates over the issue that Casio wrist watch which boasts of ten year battery life under normal circumstances does not provide a single day of battery warranty and only a goodwill gesture of battery replacement within one year from the date of purchase cannot be appreciated.
The Complainant claims that 10 year battery life was clearly displayed in the sticker attached to the band of the wrist watch.
This according to the Complainant was unfair and deceptive trade practice.
Defence case:- The Opposite parties contested the case by filing written versions denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and prayed for dismissal of the instant case.
OP 2 points out in their representation that there was no fault in the watch purchased by the Complainant and the sole purpose of filing the complaint petition was to get refund of the consideration price of the watch, which was fully functional, only on an anticipation that the watch in question might stop working or the battery would not give its optimum performance.
OP 2 points out further that so far as the warranty conditions are concerned, battery leakage shall be treated as out of warranty.
Now, as regards battery life, OP 2 clarifies that 10-year battery life of the watch is dependent on multiple factors and ‘10-year battery life’ statement signifies that the battery fitted in such watches has a longer battery life compared to other watches and may last up to 10 years depending upon usage by the customer. It is further submitted that these watches have multiple functions and usages. Therefore the heavier the usage of the watch and its functions, the sooner the battery would drain.
OP 2 further states that if the Complainant was not satisfied with his purchase he could have exchanged the watch from the OP 1 within seven days from the date of purchase of the watch. The option of exchange was available to him and the same has also been stated explicitly in the corresponding invoice.
OP 2 further clarifies that year of manufacturing of the watch was not a determining factor of its performance and the OP gave the warranty starting from the day it was purchased by the customer irrespective of its manufacturing date.
OP 1 on the other hand states in their written version that the Complainant while purchasing the watch did not raise any question regarding its year of manufacturing and any other allied aspect. Being fully satisfied after verifying upon the documents inside the box and the label attached with the box of the watch the Complainant purchased the said wrist watch.
OP 1 further affirms that neither he was in receipt any information that there was any trouble with the watch nor the complainant visited his shop for expressing his grievance. It is further claimed that prior to the purchase, the complainant verified all documents, warranty period, battery life, date of manufacture etc.
The complainant and the OP 1 are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly and the claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. Thus this Commission has both territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant matter.
The questions whether there was any deficiency of service on the opposite parties’ part and whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief are taken together in the following part of this order as the issues are mutually interrelated.
Decision with reasons: In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the Complainant’s grievances revolved round the sole issue that while displaying the watch in the showcase there was an apparent commitment of ten years battery life in the label attached to the watch but while selling a watch a test battery was provided inside the watch and in no circumstances the said battery was to be functional for ten years.
Materials on records are perused. The issue which is clear is that the Complainant did not have any substantial complaint with regard to the functioning of the watch and he never approached to the opposite parties with regard to this issue.
Now, as regards battery life the clarification advanced by the OP 2 is appreciable.
A watch which is kept in the showcase is not supposed to contain a battery with a ten years life span. The dealer is supposed to keep the watch for display in the showcase with a battery just to keep the watch functional. There is possibility that the watch has been lying in the show case for last two years. In that case one cannot expect that the battery placed inside the watch will have a ten years life span. The OP confessed in categorical terms in the module that the battery that comes loaded in the watch when it is purchased is used for function and performance testing in the factory and the test battery may go dead quicker than the normally rated battery life . A watch with a sticker stating ten years battery life does not necessarily mean that the battery placed inside the watch while it is in the showcase for display has a ten years life span.
Moreover ten year battery life is thoroughly a relative term. It is quite natural that battery life in any electronic device largely depends upon the type of the device, the use of the device, the weather under which the device is used and many other conditions. The Complainant himself in his brief notes of argument uses the term ’10 year battery life under standard condition’. Here the term ‘standard condition’ is the key term.
Besides, the warranty policy under the Casio Watch Service Assurance states that the Watch carries a limited warranty of twenty four months from the date of purchase against all manufacturing defects subject to the terms and conditions of the warranty policy.
It is also submitted that the battery of the watch is not covered under the warranty policy of the OP 2 but still as a goodwill gesture the OP 2 provides a free replacement of the battery if the same is drained within a year of purchase.
In connection with the complaint petition, OP 2 relies on a catena of judgments pronounced by different judicial forums.
However to mention one,
in the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Ditch Airlines and Anr, (2000) 9 SCC 424, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
In view of the above and on consideration of the clarifications and explanations advanced by the respondent, this Commission is of the opinion that whatever be the grievances of the petitioner, deficiency of service or any sort of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties cannot be established in unequivocal terms.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case bearing no. 184/2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest. However there is no order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties or their authorized Advocates/Agents on record, by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
