Date of Filing : 25.09.2014
Date of Order : 26.04.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.393/2014
TUESDAY THIS 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2016
Mr. Meena Gaurdian,
T.1, Marin’s Govind Apt.,
No.102, Kaliammankoil Street,
Virugambakkam 600 092. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. The Manager,
World of Titan,
New No.1/557, Old No.1/217,
East Coast Road,
Kothivakkam,
Chennai 600 041.
2. M/s. Narayans,
World of Titan,
No.70, Vishnu Kirshna Buildings,
Royapettah High Road,
Chennai 600 014. ..Opposite parties
For the Complainant : M/s. A. Manoharan & other
For the opposite parties : M/s. W.S. Jayaprakash & other
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.7995/ and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.
ORDER
THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The complainant submit that he has purchased watch namely Tommy Hilfiger bearing the Model No. embossed as TN1710315/D from the Showroom of the 1st opposite party on 06.03.2014 for a sum of Rs.7995/-. Within three months from the date of purchase the strap of the said watch got worn out and back chassis of the watch was showing sign of rust, the complainant had made complaint to the 1st opposite party for the rectification of the said defects, and the 1st opposite party’s staff have received the said watch for service and for replacing the strap but for the cost of Rs.1550/-. After the receipt of the same the staff of the 1st opposite party have not properly responded despite of the several personal approach made by the complainant. Accordingly the complainant had issued legal notice dated 27.08.2014 and the 1st opposite party had replied the same through their counsel dated 03.09.2014, in which the opposite parties have stated that they are unable to replace a new strap and rectify defects and that they would give a coupon for the value of the watch. As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. As such the complainant has sought for claiming refund a sum of Rs.7995/ and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of the complaint. Hence the complaint.
Written Version of opposite parties is in briefly as follows:
2. The opposite parties denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. It is true that the complainant visited the show room of the 1st opposite party and stated that the strap of the watch became worn out within three months of purchasing it and therefore wanted replacement of the watch with a new one. When the complainant had approached the 1st opposite party with complaint, the staff of the opposite party have properly given response to the complainant grievance and explained the position of the warranty that as far as strap of the watch is concerned there is no warranty as such the complainant also kind enough and agreed to get the strap replaced at the cost of Rs.1550/-. Since the said watch is not manufactured by the 1st opposite party the Titan Company Ltd., they are only an authorized dealer for selling the said watch that of Tommy Hilfger through their own retail outlet as such on receipt on the said watch from the said complaint as per receipt, the same was sent to the 2nd opposite party, the service centre of the Titan Company Ltd., due to non availability of the said strap it cannot be replaced and was delivered to the 1st opposite party as per delivery challan. Therefore in order to meet out the demand of the complainant they prepare to give voucher for Rs.6445/- (less the value of the cost of the strap) and subsequently have come forward to give the voucher for the entire cost of the said watch i.e Rs.7995/- to the complainant. Without availing the said offer given by the opposite party as a proper remedy for solving the problem the complainant filed the above complaint. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint liable to be dismissed.
3. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency of service
as alleged in the complaint.?
2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for in the
complaint against the opposite parties, If so, to what extent ?
5. POINTS 1 to 2 : -
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the opposite parties, proof affidavits filed by both the complainant and the opposite parties and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 filed on the side of complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 filed on the side of the opposite parties and considered the arguments of the both sides.
6. There is no dispute between the parties, that the complainant has purchased complaint mentioned watch namely Tommy Hilfiger bearing the Model No. embossed as TN1710315/D from the Showroom of the 1st opposite party on 06.03.2014 for a sum of Rs.7995/- as per Invoice Ex.A1. Within three months from the date of purchase the strap of the said watch got worn out and back chassis of the watch was showing sign of rust, the complainant had made complaint to the 1st opposite party for the rectification of the said defects, and the 1st opposite party’s staff have received the said watch for service and for replacing the strap but for the cost of Rs.1550/- as per the receipt Ex.A2 on 25.07.2014.
7. The complainant made grievance after the receipt of the same the staff of the 1st opposite party have not properly responded despite of the several personal approach made by the complainant. The complainant had issued legal notice dated 27.08.2014 Ex.A3, and the 1st opposite party had replied the same through their counsel by Ex.A4 dated 03.09.2014, in which the opposite parties have stated they have intimated by phone to the complainant that there was no strap at Brand’s stock point as advised by the company as new strap of similar type could not be supplied they informed us they can give a coupon for the value of the watch less cost of the strap i.e Rs.6445/- and also stating they have received the watch from the company without replacement on 22.08.2014, since the complainant failed to avail the same, keeping in view the need for better customer service they continued their follow-up with Titan to arrange to issue the coupon for full value. As a special case and considering their long term relationship and their request for the benefit of the customer were ready to issue a coupon for full value i.e for Rs.7995/-. They received such communication on 01.09.2014 and the same was informed to the complainant over phone to make use of the coupon for Rs.7995/- for fresh purchase asking the complainant to bring the bill and guarantee card in order to produce to their brand.
8. However the complainant showing her disagreement to avail the said proposal given by the opposite party, instead of complying the demand made by the complainant for refund of the said cost of Rs.7995/- giving voucher and asking to purchase alternative commodity by the opposite parties is not proper on their part having sold the defective watch to the complainant contrary to their advertisement regarding the quality of the said watch, amounts to deficiency of service as such the complainant claims the refund of the said amount in cash with interest and also compensation in the complaint.
9. Whereas the opposite parties have resisted the said complaint by saying that the said watch was not defective as contended by the complainant whereas the fact that it is a leather strap and what was seen of the strap was common wear and tear which is natural for a leather strap after a period of three months of constant wearing of any one. When the complainant had approached the 1st opposite party with complaint, the staff of the opposite party have properly given response to the complainant grievance and explained the position of the warranty that as far as strap of the watch is concerned there is no warranty as such the complainant also kind enough and agreed to get the strap replaced at the cost of Rs.1550/-. Since the said watch is not manufactured by the 1st opposite party the Titan Company Ltd., they are only an authorized dealer for selling the said watch that of Tommy Hilfger through their own retail outlet as such on receipt on the said watch from the said complaint as per receipt Ex.A2 the same was sent to the 2nd opposite party, the service centre of the Titan Company Ltd., due to non availability of the said strap it cannot be replaced and was delivered to the 1st opposite party as per delivery challan Ex.B3. In the said circumstances in order to meet out the demand of the customer / complainant they prepared to give voucher for Rs.6445/- (less the value of the cost of the strap) and subsequently have come forward to give the voucher for the entire cost of the said watch i.e Rs.7995/- to the complainant, without availing the said offer given by the opposite party as a proper remedy for solving the problem as a special case, the complaint filed by the complainant claiming refund of the amount and compensation are all not sustainable and the complaint liable to be dismissed.
10. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case even as per the averments made by the opposite parties they have not denied that the said complaint mentioned watch purchased from the 1st opposite party within three months from the date of purchase was found defective that the leather strap of the watch got worn out and the back chassis of the watch was showing sign of rust. Considering the cost of the watch, and such a costly watch purchased by the complainant become defective as stated above, cannot be said that the defects had happened in the usual course of use of the same for three months with tear and wear as contended by the opposite party is not acceptable. We are also in considered view accepting the said defect of the watch the opposite party would have refunded the cost of the watch to the complainant at a earliest point of time when they found that no strap was available and the defect found in the watch is of such nature cannot be rectified. Contrary to this the opposite parties attitude that after several approach made by the complainant coming to resolve the matter belatedly that too by giving voucher for the said cost of the watch i.e Rs.7995/- after receipt of the legal notice sent by the complainant and insisting the complainant make use of the said voucher by way of compelling him to purchase some other commodity, cannot be considered to be a proper response for the said genuine complainant’s grievance. Therefore, as contended by the complainant, the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service without refunding the cost of the watch in time and adopting the alternative mode by offering to issue voucher for the said amount, and asking the complainant to make use of the same for purchase of some other product from the opposite party which amounts to compelling the customer / complainant against his will. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are liable to refund the said amount to the complainant in cash with interest will be justifiable in the above facts and circumstances of the case.
11. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are liable to refund the cost of the watch i.e. a sum of Rs.7995/- in cash with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of legal notice issued by the complainant i.e. 27.08.2014 to till the date of payment. Since the said refund amount is ordered to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant with interest as mentioned above we are not inclined to grant compensation sought for by the complainant against opposite parties. The opposite parties are also liable to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. Accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered.
In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of the watch a sum of Rs.7995/- (Rupees Seven thousand nine hundred and ninety five only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 27.08.2014 to till the date of payment, and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards the cost of the complaint to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 26th day of April 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents:
Ex.A1- 6.3.2014 - Copy of Tax invoice world of Titan.
Ex.A2- 24.6.2014 - Copy of Cash Memo Titan Watch Care Centre.
Ex.A3- 27.8.2014 - Copy of legal notice with Ack. Card.
Ex.A4- 3.9.2014 - Copy of Reply notice.
Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-
Ex.B1- - - Copy of warranty booklet.
Ex.B2- 24.6.2014 - Copy of Booking Slip.
Ex.B3- 1.7.2014 - Copy of receipt of watches for repair and return.
Ex.B4- 2.7.2014 - Copy of customer acknowledgment form.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
