1.                     This is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 26.11.2009 passed in complaint case No.151 of 2009 : Sh. Chander Vikas Vs. M/s Bata India Limited.

2.             Briefly stated the case of the complainants is that complainant No.1 owned two watches, one Cartier Watch and another Baume & Mercier Watch, which costed around Rs.1.50 lacs each in the international market. It was averred that complainant came across the shop of OP, who on enquiry claimed to be the Authorized Dealer of said watches and assured the complainant for servicing the watches with one year guarantee. It was averred that the complainant gave the said watches to OP for service vide Annexures C-1 and C-2. When the complainant collected the watches from OP, it was noticed that the same were not working properly and as such, the same were again taken to OP. It was alleged that the OP retained the said watches for few days and the same were returned saying that the same were working properly whereas the same were not working properly. Thereafter, it was averred by the complainants that the complainant visited Kapoor Times Crafter, an authorized dealer of Cartier & Baume and Marcier, and on checking the watches, it was told that the watches needed complete servicing. It was alleged that the said authorized dealer also told the complainant that OP was not an authorized dealer of said watches. Upon this, as averred, the complainant visited OP and demanded refund of the amount paid as no service was done by the OP but to no avail. Alleging the above act of OP as unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on its part, the complainants had filed the present complaint.

3.             The version of OP is that at the time the watches were shown to it, it was clearly told to the complainant that they were not the authorized service agents for these brands, but the complainants insisted on to get the watches serviced from OP and since there was no major part required for service, OP agreed to service the said watches. OP further stated that the copy of the receipts (C-1 and C-2) clearly mentioned the brands of watches for which OP was authorized agent and it nowhere mentioned the brands of the complainant’s watches. OP next stated that on checking the watch, nothing wrong was found therein and resultantly, complainant No.2 Mr.Vivek Sud was told that the watch was alight but if he still faced any problem, he should leave the watch for running test by wearing it on the wrist of the hand. As per the OP, since the bracelet (chain) of the watch was too short, complainant No.2 was advised to get spare links of the bracelet (chain) so that the watch could be checked in all respects. It was asserted that the complainants never showed the second watch for any defect but brought only Cartier Watch for checking once and the same was given back immediately after checking. Pleading no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             The learned District Forum, in its analysis of the complaint recorded that whereas the case of the complainants is that two imported watches Cartier and Baume & Mercier were given for service to OP being dealer of the said watches, Annexure C-1 and C-2 placed by the Complainant on record do nowhere mentioned that OPs are the authorized service centre for repairing the said watches. Thus, as per the learned District Forum, this contention of Complainant could not be believed to be true. Further, according to the learned District Forum, except Annexure C-1 and C-2 dated 29.9.2008, the Complainant had not placed on record any document to show as to when the watches were returned again to OP for the second time for repair and when were those returned by the OP to the complainant. The learned District Forum next recorded that even his visit to Kapoor Times Crafter in Delhi on 3.12.2008 did not show that the watches repaired by OP at Chandigarh were not correctly repaired or serviced. It further recorded that no affidavit of Kapoor Times Crafter had been filed by the complainant to prove that the watches repaired by OP were not repaired the way they should had been. The learned District Forum further observed that it was on the insistence of the Complainant that the OP agreed to repair the watches and after repair the same were returned to the Complainant in perfect working condition. It further recorded that the contention of the Complainant that the watches were not functioning well had not been admitted by the OP, however, OP had admitted that Complainant No.2 had brought to them Cartier brand watch again for checking and which too, after checking and finding its mechanism correct, was returned the same day while the second watch Baume & Mercier was never shown to them for the second time after its repair, meaning thereby that the watch was perfectly working fine with the Complainant. As per the learned District Forum, no expert evidence was brought on record by the complainant to prove that the watches remained non-functional even after carrying out repairs by the OP, except bald allegations. The learned District Forum further recorded in the impugned order that the affidavit (OP-1/1) of one Sanjeev Verma, Technician-in-Charge of Service Centre of Ethos (Watch Store), SCO No. 6-7, Sector 8, Chandigarh placed on record by the OP had not been contradicted or opposed by the Complainant and thus, the same goes in favour of OPs. In view of its above discussion, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

5.             Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Complainant No.2 has filed the present appeal. The appeal having been taken on board, notices was sent to the respondents and the record of the complaint case summoned from the District Forum. Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant No.2 whereas Sh. H. P. S. Kochhar, Advocate along with Sh. Chander Deep Singh, Advocate represented Respondent No.1/OP – Rajan Watch Company. None appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2 – Kapoor Time Crafters, New Delhi despite service.

6.             Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant No.2 submitted that the complainants had given two very expensive watches for repair to the OP (Respondent No.1 – Rajan Watch Company) and the same had not been properly repaired/services by the said OP even though a guarantee for one year had been given by the OP to the complainant for a period of one year for the defect free functioning of the two watches in question. He submitted that consequently, since the watches did not function properly, the appellant had to take those watches to Kapoor Time Crafters, New Delhi for repairs and had to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.9,500/- respectively, the bills for which he referred to at Pages 51 and 52 of the appeal paper book. He emphatically submitted that these clearly goes to prove that the OP – Rajan Watch Company had not serviced/repaired the watches properly and it clearly amounted to deficiency in service, a cognizance of which the learned District Forum had failed to take. He, therefore, prayed that the complaint and the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

7.             In response, Sh. H. P. S. Kochhar, Advocate learned counsel for Respondent No.1 – Rajan Watch Company submitted that the bills being referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant were not before the learned District Forum at the time of adjudicating upon the complaint case and these could not be now taken on record and read as evidence. He further submitted that the appeal had been filed only by Sh. Vivek Sud (complainant No.2) who actually was not the owner of the watches as is apparent from the bare reading of Para 1 of the complaint wherein it has been clearly stated that complainant No.1 Sh. K. K. Sud was the owner of the watches. He thereafter emphatically reiterated that the impugned order was a well reasoned and detailed order and it needed no interference.

8.             In response, Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the complainants were father and son and the appeal had been filed by the son and therefore, he was duly entitled to file the appeal.

9.             We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10.           Before going into the merits of the case, it is relevant to deal with the objection of learned counsel for respondent No.1/OP that the appellant was not entitled to file the present appeal. In this case, it is quite clear that the complaint had been filed by Sh. K. K. Sud and Sh. Vivek Sud who admittedly are father and son. There is also no objection raised by Sh. K. K. Sud to his son filing the appeal. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be clearly gathered that son is also a beneficiary of the goods in question because the owner himself arrayed him as one of the complainants in the complaint case. Thus, this objection of respondent No.1 being only a technical in nature, which has no material effect on the outcome of the case, is overruled.

11.           Now coming to the merits of the case, the appellant has two grouses against the OP. Firstly, that it had told the complainants that it was the authorized repairer of watches in question and secondly, that the watches in question had not been properly repaired.

12.           Coming to the first issue, the complainants who are educated persons have themselves placed on record the guarantee card given by the OP – Rajan Watch Company to the complainants, which clearly indicate that it is an authorized service agent only of “OMEGA, TAG HEUER, RADO, TISSOT, TITAM, TIMEX, HMT, CHRISTIAN DIOR” watches and these clearly did not include the watches in question. Hence, now it cannot lie in the mouth of the complainants to claim that they had been wrongly informed about the OP being also authorized agent of the watches in question as the complainants have not placed any evidence let alone cogent evidence to prove their contention. Thus, we are in consonance with the view held by the learned District Forum in this matter.

13.           Now coming to the second issue with regard to improper repair of the watches in question, the complainants have not placed any evidence, whatsoever on record, to prove that the repairs to the watches done by respondent No.1 – Rajan Watch Company was not proper or it was done in a manner that it should not have been done. The only evidence in this context placed on record by the complainants/appellant is the Repair Order Forms (Annexures C-3 and C-4) and now the appellant has also filed a Retail Invoice annexed at Pages 51 and 52 of the appeal paper book. These documents only go to prove that the watches had been subsequently repaired from the authorized dealer i.e. Kapoor Time Crafters, New Delhi. However, there is no evidence on record to prove by the subsequent repairer of the watches that the watches had been repaired due to any fault in repair/service done by the OP. It is also pertinent to mention here that the watches had been taken to Kapoor Time Crafters three months after the repair, which had been done by the Respondent No.1 and what happened to these watches in between these three months is not on record. Consequently, we are again in consonance with the view held by the learned District Forum that the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP (Respondent No.1) supported by any believable evidence or any evidence of an expert and even not from Respondent No.2.

14.           In view of the foregoing discussion, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.

15.           Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

23^rd March 2010.