IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Sri P.Das
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
Smti S.Bora
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.13/2017
1.Sri Chandan Singh : Complainants
S/o Late Anil Singh
Resident of Vill: Chatai Chapori
P.O & P.S: Tezpur
Dist: Sonitpur,Assam
Vs.
1.Rolex Watch Company Pvt.Ltd. : Opp. party
Corporate Office:
1st Floor, N.M Wadia Building, 123 M.G Road
Fountain Mumbai: 400001
2.Luxuary Brands
502 Millenium Building, Sector-43
Gurgaon 122001
3.Classybrands
M-40,Sector-38
Gurgaon, Haryana-121001
Appearance:
Kishore Deka, With Chinmoy Baruah Advocate. : For Complainant
Sri Sudesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. : For Opp. party No.1
None : For Opp. No. 2 & 3
Date of argument : 19-11-2018
Date of Judgment : 17-12-2018
JUDGMENT
- The facts averred in the complaint, in brief, are that Complainant on 05-01-2017 purchased a Rolex Brand wrist Watch manufactured by opposite party No.1 through on line shopping portal of opposite party No.2 at a price consideration of Rs.13,990/- which was shipped and delivered by opposite party No.3. After opening the sealed carton, Complainant noticed that the wrist Watch was not in a running condition even after being worn and often goes idle. Complainant immediately complained the matter to the opposite party No.2 over phone and also through Whatsapp account. On 12-01-2017 one person named Sunil of the Opposite party No.2 assured the Complainant to take back the Watch in two days time and the return procedure would be informed to the Complainant later. The website address viz., “Luxurhub. co. in” provided by the opposite party No.2 also appeared to be a hoax. All his efforts to get the Watch right being futile, the Complainant is therefore before the Forum alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant in his complaint has prayed for a direction of the Forum to the opposite parties to jointly and severally replace the wrist Watch, pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
- Only Opp. party No.1 contested the case by filing written version. The concise versions thereunder are that there is no nexus between the Watch in question and service of the opp. party No.1- as this opp. party No.1 is neither the manufacturer of the Watch nor an authorized dealer/distributor nor has the Watch been repaired or examined by the opp. party No.1. And that Rolex branded Watches are manufactured by Rolex S.A, Geneva, Switzerland and such Watches are not sold on line. Further that the maximum retail price of the most affordable Rolex Watch in India is approximately Rs.3,05,000/-. Stating that opposite party No.2 is neither an authorized retailer of Rolex brand Watches in India nor even a reseller, the opp. party No.1 has aired its apprehension that Complainant may have been a victim of unscrupulous practices and bought a counterfeit/fake Rolex Watch for which the opp. party No.1 cannot be saddled with any liability whatsoever. With the above contentions in main the contesting opp. party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint against it.
- The case against opposite party no.2 & 3 proceeded ex parte for non-appearance.
- Complainant tendered his evidence in chief on affidavit and exhibited the purchase invoice of the Watch in question as Ext-1. The wrist Watch in question is also exhibited as Material Ext-1. Contesting opp. party No.1 did not adduce evidence of any witness and preferred to remain content by cross-examining the complainant.
We have carefully considered the materials available on record and the written argument filed by the contesting opp. party No.1.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the opposite party No.2 adopted unfair trade practice?
- Whether there was deficiency in service ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief ?
DECISION ON THE POINTS WITH DISCUSSION
- Admittedly and evidently, the Complainant purchased the Watch in question on line from the opposite party No.2 Luxury Brands, by paying rupees 13,990/-(Thirteen thousand nine hundred ninety) on delivery. But after opening the sealed box containing the Watch, the complainant found that the Watch was not in running condition. Hence, the matter was intimated to the opposite party No.2 over phone and through Whatsapp with request to inform the opposite party No.1 about the defective Watch. One Mr Sunil for the opposite party No.2 assured the Complainant to take back the Watch.
- The case is contested, as observed earlier, by the opposite party No.1 only. According to the opposite party No.1, Rolex Branded Watches are manufactured by Rolex S.A in Geneva, Switzerland. The opposite party No.1 is neither a manufacturer nor is an authorized dealer or distributor of Rolex branded Watch.
- Raising doubt about the genuineness of the Watch, opposite part No.1 stated that the maximum retail price of the most affordable Rolex Watch in India is approximately Rs.3,05,000/-. Only authorized retailers are permitted to sell Rolex branded Watches in India. But the Rolex brand is misused and counterfeited by some unscrupulous persons. The opposite party No.2 is neither an authorized retailer of ‘Rolex” brand Watches in India nor even a reseller of authentic Rolex Watches.Complainant may have been a victim of unscrupulous practices and bought counterfeit or fake Rolex Watch.
- The complainant in his cross-examination stated “Neither do I know as to where Rolex Watch is manufactured nor its minimum price. I do know that Rolex Watch is the costliest in watches. I have simply heard that the Watch is available at Sohum, Guwahati. It is a fact that I have not checked the website of Rolex Watch. I do not know where its distributors are located. I purchased the Rolex Watch on line from Luxury Watch website. There also the distributors are not mentioned. I have not checked the fact that replicas are also sold. I have not investigated into the matter in respect of the company “Luxury Watch” even after being cheated”
- He also stated that“The person with whom I contacted identified himself as Sunil by name. I had contacted him only on Whatsapp. I have not taken up the matter with Luxury Watch through e-mail. I have not made any contact with Rolex Watch nor have I visited on any of their official websites”.
- The above evidence of the Complainant clearly demonstrates that before purchasing the Watch, Complainant did not make any enquiry about genuineness of the Watch or contact with the opposite party about genuineness of the opposite party No.2.
- Since the opposite party No.2, inspite of service of notice, failed to submit any written version and also failed to rebut the evidence appeared against it, so, what have been found against it in the evidence reproduced above, and written version of the opposite party No.1 are accepted. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to hold that the opposite party no.2 adopted unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act.
- From the complaint and evidence of the Complainant, which remains unrebutted, it is found clear that the Complainant, time and again contacted the opposite party No.2 through one Mr Sunil intimating him about the defects appeared in the Watch, but the latter failed to take any action, though initially he assured the Complainant to take back the Watch. Such unrebutted evidence leads us to hold that the opposite party No.2 is also liable for deficiency in service. However, we find no materials against the opposite party No.1 and 3.
Hence the Complainant is entitled to get relief from the opposite party no.2 only.
- The complainant has prayed for -
- Replacement of the wrist watch so purchased;
- Compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice as well as for mental agony, waste of time, violation of legal rights etc.
- Litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-
- Any other relief/s as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper.
- The Complainant paid Rs.13,990/- as price of the Watch. As he failed to get any service, so we are of the opinion that the Complainant is entitled to get back the price paid. That apart, he is entitled to cost of litigation and compensation for harassment, mental tension etc. The Complainant has not forwarded any reasons either in the complaint or in
his evidence, the basis of claiming Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. In absence of any ground of claiming such amount of compensation, we have considered the materials on record before us. We find it just and proper to fix the amount of compensation and cost at Rs.20,000/- only.
O R D E R
Consequently, the complaint is allowed against the opposite party No.2 and dismissed against opposite party No.1 and 3. Opposite party No.2 is directed to take back the Watch and refund Rs.13,990/-(Thirteen thousand nine hundred ninety)only as the price of the Watch and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty thousand)only within a period of 30(thirty) days of receipt of the copy of judgment and order. In default, the amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation shall entail interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization in full.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 17th day of Dec.,2018
Dictated and corrected by:
(A.DEVEE) Pronounced & delivered by
President
Dist.Consumer D.R Forum
Sonitpur,Tezpur (A.DEVEE)
President
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
We agree:- Sonitpur,Tezpur
(Sri P.Das) (Smt.S.Bora)
Member Member
