Order-6.
Date-22/09/2015.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he bought 3 nos. of Citizen (made in Japan) Wrist Watches, one ladies and one pair of ladies and gents from S.H. Mumtazuddin & Sons, 43N, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata – 700 034 and same was gifted to the newly married couple but after a few days of purchase the gents wrist watch was not functioning, complainant went to the showroom several times and they sent him to their service centre at 142/1, Radha Bazar Street, Kolkata – 700 001 which is also the service centre of showrooms of S.H. Mumtazuddin, but still no fruitful results is yet received though complainant went there several times and paid service charge/cost of batteries etc. and as a result he had to purchase another pair of watches for the couple. Lastly as per advice of one salesman of 4, Radha Bazar Street’s showroom complainant went to the Anglo Swiss Watch Co. at B.B.D. Bag for repairing of the watch and after checking they refused to repair and informed that the watch was duplicate.
Thereafter, complainant lodged a complaint at Kreta Suraksha Mela, 2014 and two meetings were held in the office of CA&FBP where complainant demanded to replace the pair of watches by any pair of watches and Shri Parimal Das, representative of S.H. Mumtazuddin attended the meetings but cannot be empowered to take any decision, Shri Das declined any connection with Behala Showroom. And so, in the circumstances, Assistant Director, CA&FBP advised me to lodge a complaint before the appropriate legal Forum for redressal and on 29-01-2015 one Shri S.N. Jha on behalf of S.H. Mumtazuddin contacted over phone and informed that after consultation with the authority complainant would be called in the next week but they did not talk and Behala showroom in the meantime closed down before lodging any complaint to this authority. In the above circumstances, for negligent and deficient manner of service and at the same time adopting unfair trade practice in this regard for selling a duplicate type of watches though received amount in respect of original watches made in Japan and prayed for return of Rs.3,000/- and compensation, litigation cost etc.
On the other hand the notice was duly served upon the OP on 14-08-2015 to S. H. Mumtazuddin & Sons and S.H. Mumtazuddin. Thereafter, S. H. Mumtazuddin filed a letter informing that S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. is not involved in this case and S.H. Mumtazuddin & Sons and S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. are of two separate companies but due to postal information the letter came to S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. at 4. Radha Bazar Street, which is that actual address of S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. instead of S.H. Mumtazuddin & Sons and it is also reported that address of S.H. Mumtazuddin & Sons given below that is 142/1, Radha Bazar Street, Kolkata – 700 001. So, S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd., OP2 is not related with the case and falsely the case is filed by the complainant for which the complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with Reasons
On proper consideration of the complaint including the reply of the OP it is found that complainant purchased no doubt Citizen two sets of watches at a cost of Rs.1,750/- and also purchased another Citizen ladies watch at a cost of Rs.950/- on 09-10-2010 from S.H. Mumtazuddin & Sons, 43N, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata – 700 034 and S.H. Mumtazuddin & Sons gave guarantee card and in the said guaranty card it is noted that their other showroom is situated at S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. at 13, B.B.D. Bag, R.N. Mukherjee Road Crossing also and from one receipt of S.H. Mumtazuddin & Sons it is found that S.H. Mumtazuddin’s head office is at 4, Radha Bazar Street, Kolkata – 700 001. Anyhow, OP S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. submitted that S.H. Mumtazuddin & Sons and S.H. Mumtazuddin are two different companies and no way S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. is connected with the purchase from this S.H. Mumtazuddin & Sons but considering the entire business of the OPs it is already proved by such name S.H. Mumtazuddin runs many showroom and they have their showrooms in the name of S.H. Mumtazuddin and Sons at Diamond Harbour, S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. at 4, Radha Bazar Street, the Head Office and other showrooms of S.H. Mumtazuddin situated at 43N, Diamond Harbour Road and also at Camac Street and other places. So, considering the documents it is clear that the defence of the OP that S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. is a separate company is completely false. On the other hand it is found that S.H. Mumtazuddin was established in 1922 and it is being run and at different places and its name is different but head office of S.H. Mumtazuddin is at 4, Radha Bazar Street, Kolkata – 1, it is found from one receipt cash memo of S.H. Mumtazuddin of 13, B.B.D. Bag, R.N. Mukherjee Crossing, Kolkata, dated 24-07-2003, so, considering all the above facts we are convinced to hold that S.H. Mumtazuddin and/or S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. or Gaba Times Pvt. Ltd. are the shop and showrooms of S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. So, considering the documents it is clear that S.H. Mumtazuddin & Sons is a showroom at Radha Bazar or Diamond Harbour or Camac Street but all its Head office is at 4, Radha Bazar Street, Kolkata and from the official letter of S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. as filed by the OP it is clear that their head office is S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. situated at 4, Radha Bazar Street and complainant purchased the items from its showroom at Diamond Harbour and in view of the fact we are convinced to hold that OP S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. submitted a false defence only to discharge their liability but in this Forum huge number of cases have been filed againt S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. or against S.H. Mumtazuddin or against Gaba Times Pvt. Ltd. but all are the showrooms and shop-rooms of S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. and it is known to all and this Forum has confirmed it in so many cases and ultimately S.H. Mumtazuddin was compelled to return the entire amount to different customers. In the present case no doubt it is proved from the evidence of the complainant that OP sold one pair of ladies and gent’s wrist watches to the complainant which is not a genuine product but it is duplicate of the original product. Complainant reported the fact to the OPs but they did not take any step and matter was also reported to CA&FBP authority and that was heard but before the CA&FBP present OP took similar defence for which it could not be properly decided and complainant was asked to file this complaint. Truth is that complainant purchased the said two wrist watches, one ladies and one gents but it was gifted to his nearest family members in their wedding but same were found not working. Complainant forthwith went to the OP but they did not respond thereafter they went to Anglo Swiss Company but their technician noticed and informed that the product is not genuine but duplicate one and when that matter was reported to the OP, OP began to deny their responsibility and tried to convince the CA&FBP and this Forum that they never sold it and it is the only defence of S.H. Mumtazuddin Company. No doubt they are running their business since 1922 but very recently for some years they are duping the customers in so many manners by selling different type of damage batteries, mobiles, laptop, tab including some other articles and that is their business now and in fact, observing their different type of advertisement and glamour of their showrooms people at large are being allured and appear before the showrooms and shop-room of the OPs for purchasing some articles for their own need but they are being deprived and in the present case complainant is deprived and deceived by the OP and fact remains complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,750/- for the said two wrist watches but ultimately it was detected that it is a duplicate one but not original wrist watches of the manufacturing company and for adopting such sort of deceitful manner of trade and for selling a duplicate product but not genuine wrist watch to the complainant no doubt OP have committed unfair practice and deceitful manner of trade for which no doubt complainant has been harassed and for that reason invariably complainant is entitled to get back the entire amount including compensation. But at the same time for adopting such deceitful manner of trade and for deceiving the public at large in such a manner by the OPs and also considering their previous conduct in so many cases by this Forum we are confirmed that OPs again adopted unfair trade practice for which they should be imposed penal damages only to check their such sort of unfair trade practice in future.
In fact, if the OPs have their any business ethics they ought to have rectified themselves when in previous occasion they have been imposed penal damages for adopting unfair trade practice but we have gathered that even after getting penal order in many cases they have not charged their trend to deceive the public at large and when in the present case again it is proved that OP has deceived the complainant by selling duplicate item by taking actual price of original Citizen watches. It is no doubt an act of deceitful manner of trade run by the OP. At the same time it is proved from the overact of the OPs that OPs harassed the complainant in so many manners if actually OPs have their ethics in running such business as and when they called by the CA&FBP at that time OP may invariably pray before the authority that the matter shall be settled by them with the complainant and genuine wrist watches shall be replaced against duplicate watch but that honest approach has also not been shown by the OPs and placing some false document they managed to came out from that mediation proceeding but ultimately they are caught by this Forum when this Forum has handled so many cases of S.H. Mumtazuddin and in all cases decree have been passed and that decree had been complied by S.H. Mumtazuddin and it is another addition of feather of the mal-practices in their hat made by the OPs for which we are inclined to hold that complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.3,000/- against OPs.
OPs, particularly OP S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd., 4, Radha Bazar Street, Kolkata – 700 001 is hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- for harassing the complainant and also for adopting unfair trade practice for selling duplicate item to the complainant.
Accordingly, OPs are jointly and severally shall have to pay the entire decretal amount, i.e. litigation cost Rs.3,000/- + refund amount Rs.3,000/- + compensation Rs.2,000/- that is total Rs.8,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order OPs jointly and severally shall pay penal damages at the rate ofRs.100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum.
For adopting unfair trade practice again by the OPs, OPs are imposed penal cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be paid to this Forum within one month from the date of this order and this penal order is passed to check such sort of unfair trade practice which is being continued by the OPs even after repeated imposing of penal cost against them in other cases.
Even if it is found that OP is reluctant to comply the order in that case penal action u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act shall be started against them for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.
