STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1. M/s Titan Industries Limited – Titan Eye +, SCO No. 50, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh.

2. Sumit Singh, Manager, Titan Eye +, SCO No. 50, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh.

3. Sashi Bhushan Singh, Area Manager, Titan Eye +, SCO No. 50, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh.

….Appellants

Versus

P.D. Wadhwa, H.No.1177, Phase-5, Mohali – 160059.

……Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                   SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh.Harmandeep Singh Saini, Advocate for the                   appellants.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.10.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Parties, as under:-

“From the above detailed analysis of the entire case, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint must succeed. So, we accept the complaint and decide the same in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. The OPs are directed to provide new specs with “Tommy Hilfiger ” make frame, along with proper fitted lenses, forthwith, without charging anything. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant, jointly and severally, towards litigation costs and compensation for physical harassment, as well as mental agony caused to him. This order be complied with by the OPs, within one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which, they shall pay the awarded amount along with penal interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 19.05.2011, till the date of realization. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs”. 

2.             The facts, in brief, are that,  the son & daughter-in-law of the complainant, on his marriage anniversary, which was to fall on 30th July, 2010, wanted to offer him a gift, for which he(complainant), selected and ordered a new spectacles of “Tommy Hilfiger” make frame with lenses, with the Opposite Parties on 24.07.2010, to be delivered on 27.07.2010. The Opposite Parties (now appellants), did not deliver the same, on the said date, but, on the other hand, the delivery of the same, was made on 13.08.2010, alongwith invoice of some other sale order, with insurance cover of one year. Since the frame became tight, after fitting of lenses and the glasses did not suit the complainant, as the same were causing continuous headache, he approached Opposite Party No.2, with the complaint, who told that Tommy Hilfiger make bigger frame, was not available, in the showroom and, as soon as, it would reach, he would replace the frame, as well as lenses, free-of-cost. After one month i.e. on 13.09.2010, when the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2,  for the purpose, he suggested that he had arranged another frame of Titan make and, as soon as, he would get the Tommy Hilfiger make frame, he would replace it, free-of-cost, since it was an insured article. Opposite Party No.2, thereafter, issued another tax invoice to keep the same for accounting purpose only. It was stated that, thereafter, the complainant, visited the Opposite Parties, a number of times to get the  original Tommy Hilfiger  make frame, but without any result. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.             The Opposite Parties, in their reply, admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that an order was placed by the complainant, for spectacles on 24.07.2010. The same was to be delivered on 29.07.2010. It was further stated that when the complainant, approached the Opposite Parties on 05.08.2010, with problem in the size of the lenses, the same  were replaced on 13.08.2010, as a goodwill gesture, even, though, they were not at fault, as the lenses were measured and prepared, as per the requirement of the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant, again in the same month, approached the Opposite Parties, with the problem of nose marks, for which the nose pads were replaced, free-of-cost. It was further stated that on 3.9.2010, when the complainant approached the Opposite Parties, with the same nose problem, he was asked to choose a new frame, since the size required by him, was not available in Tommy Hilfiger frame. The complainant, himself, selected Titan frame worth Rs.4935/-, which after the Scheme discount of 25% was to cost Rs.3701/-. Accordingly, after taking due approval from the company, on 13.09.2010, for the new order, against the old order, the Opposite Parties,  issued a credit note of Rs.1572/-, with a validity of 6 months to the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, in order to maintain the good will, at every step, assisted the complainant. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, the Opposite Parties, were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the Authorized Representative of the complainant, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties.

7.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.             The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that in pursuance of the order, placed by the complainant, for the spectacles, he was delivered the same on 29.07.2010 and not on 13.08.2010. It was further submitted that, thereafter, as and when, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties, they redressed his grievance. He further submitted that even the lenses, were changed from time to time, as per the request of the complainant. It was further submitted that the Opposite Parties, were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.  He further submitted, that the District Forum, fell into a grave error, in accepting the complaint.

9.             After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellants, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter.  There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the marriage anniversary of the complainant, was to fall on 30.07.2010. On that occasion, the son and daughter-in-law of the complainant, wanted to offer him a gift, as a result whereof, he (complainant),  selected and ordered a new spectacles of Tommy Hilfiger frame with the Opposite Parties on 24.07.2010, as is evident, from Annexure 1. The sale order number written on this document is TCHS004552. There is an endorsement, on this document, which is advance receipt, issued by the Opposite Parties, that the spectacles would be ready by 29.07.2010, at about 6.00 p.m. The date of delivery, on Annexure1, was, however, written as 28.07.2010.  Annexure 2, is the tax invoice dated 13.08.2010. As per the averments contained in the complaint, duly corroborated by the affidavit of the complainant, he was supplied the spectacles on 13.08.2010. Annexure 3, bears the signatures of the complainant, showing that the spectacles were supplied to him on 13.08.2010, against invoice annexure A2. Thus, the spectacles were not delivered to the complainant on or before 30.07.2010, the date, when his marriage anniversary was to fall. On account of non delivery of the spectacles on or before 30.07.2010, when the marriage anniversary of the complainant, was to fall, for which occasion his son and daughter-in-law, had offered him the aforesaid gift, the Opposite Parties, were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.

10.           Even the spectacles with Tommy Hilfiger frame supplied to the complainant, were defective, as the frame became tight and did not suit him. Due to this reason, he had a continuous headache. According to the Opposite Parties, on 13.09.2010, the frame was changed with the one, which was of ‘Titan’ make, as the Tommy Hilfiger frame was not available with them, at that time. The Opposite Parties assured the complainant, to replace the spectacles with the frame of “Tommy Hilfiger”, but they failed to do so. Thus, after 13.09.2010, till date the spectacles with “Tommy Hilfiger” frame, have not been supplied to the complainant, though the Opposite Parties, charged the price thereof. Therefore, the Opposite Parties were also deficient, in rendering service to the complainant, in this regard.

11.           The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that in case this Commission, comes to the conclusion, that there was no substance,  in the present appeal, then the Opposite Parties, be directed to provide new spectacles with Titan make frame, as now they are not selling the spectacles with Tommy Hilfiger  make frame. This submission of the Counsel for the appellants, cannot be accepted, for the reason that there is no evidence, on record, that the manufacturing Company has stopped manufacturing Tommy Hilfiger  make frame(s), for which the order was placed by the complainant. If, for some reason, the Opposite Parties, are not selling Tommy Hilfiger  make frames, then it is their duty to procure the same, from the manufacturing Company or from other dealer, as they charged the price, for the same, and supply the same to the complainant. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

12.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants.

13.           The order passed by the District Forum, being based, on correct appreciation of evidence, and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

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

16.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

January 13, 2012                                                                                                          Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg.