Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/141/2015

L.P.Shanmugasundharam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, World of Titan - Opp.Party(s)

A.Gokulakrishnan

19 Nov 2019

ORDER

                                                                             Date of filing      : 01.04.2015

                                                                               Date of Disposal : 19.11.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.141/2015

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

                                 

L.P. Shanmugasundaram,

Advocate,

S/o. Mr. L.R. Palanisamy,

No.69/S1, Kongunadu,

Sainagar Annexe 4^th Cross Street,

Chinmayanagar,

Chennai – 600 092.                                                        .. Complainant.   

                                                                                                 ..Versus..

 

1. The Manager,

World of Titan,

No.189, NSK Salai,

Vadapalani,

Chennai – 600 026.

 

2. Titan Company Limited,

Represented by its Managing Director,

No.3, Sipcot Industrial Complex,

Hosur – 635 126.                                                     ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant           : M/s. A. Gokulakrishnan &  

                                                           another

1^st opposite party                            : Ex-parte

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party : M/s. Lavanya Shankar

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to replace the faulty watch with a new one of the same value of Rs.7,195/- and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, loss of reputation, pain and sufferings caused by the opposite parties with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he is a practising Advocate holding the Post of Special Government Pleader (Co-operative).  He has purchased a wrist watch worth Rs.7,195/- from the 1^st opposite party under the bill No.8277 on 15.08.2014 which was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant submits that the product hold warranty at the time of purchase.  The complainant submits that while wearing the wrist watch newly purchased from the 1^st opposite party was attending conference with several high positioned officers of the State Government suddenly he found the wrist watch was not working and had completely stopped working which has caused great mental agony to the complainant.   After the meeting is over his colleagues made comment on him that he is wearing watch without working which has caused untold mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   The complainant submits that immediately he visited the 1^st opposite party showroom and handed over the watch for service on 24.11.2014.  The 1^st opposite party said that he will rectify and handover to the complainant as early as possible and made the complaint to wait for few hours.  The complainant submits that after waited few hours, the 1^st opposite party told him that the watch has major problem and the same should be sent to the 2^nd opposite party factory.  The complainant repeatedly approached the 1^st opposite party for return of the said watch but the 1^st opposite party has not responded properly.  Suddenly, the complainant received a SMS message from the 1^st opposite party that his watch was ready.  When the complainant went to collect his watch, the 1^st opposite party said that it was a false message and the complainant’s wrist watch is sent to the 2^nd opposite party factory.  Ultimately, the opposite parties made the complainant to run from pillar to post which caused serious humiliation to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated:24.01.2015 demanding to replace the defective watch with a new one.   But there is no reply from the opposite parties.   The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.     In spite of receipt of notice, the 1^st opposite party has not appeared before this Forum and hence, the 1^st opposite party was ex-parte.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 2^nd opposite party is as follows:

The 2^nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 2^nd opposite party states that the 2^nd opposite party is a well reputed company and their product is the best one in the world wide.  The 2^nd opposite party states that the he is not known about the complainant’s aptitude and duties bestowed upon him.   The 2^nd opposite party states that the complainant opted for a product which can effectively work/ function only if the apparatus is exposed to sunshine and the complainant who boast about himself of a high flying profile would invariably stay / put up in a closed environment where there is minimal scope of sunlight making its way, such being the factual position.  The 2^nd opposite party states that the product was serviced by the 1^st opposite party and kept ready for delivery as early as on 27^th November 2014 itself.  But the complainant has not come to collect the same.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 4.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 alone is marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled replacement of a new wrist watch of the same value of Rs.7,195/- as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, loss of reputation, pain and suffering caused by the opposite parties with cost as prayed for?

 

 

 

6.      On point:-

The 1^st opposite party after receipt of notice has not entered appearance before this Forum and remained ex-parte.  Both complainant and 2^nd opposite party filed their proof affidavits and written arguments.  Heard their respective Counsels also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant has pleaded and contended that he is a practising Advocate holding the Post of Special Government Pleader (Co-operative).  He has purchased a wrist watch worth Rs.7,195/- from the 1^st opposite party under bill No.8277 dated:15.08.2014 as per Ex.A1 and it was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the product hold warranty at the time of purchase, but no document of warranty filed before this Forum. The complainant pleaded and contended that wearing the wrist watch newly purchased from the 1^st opposite party with several high positioned officers of the State Government suddenly he found the wrist watch was not working and had completely stopped functioning which has caused great mental agony to the complainant.  After the meeting is over his colleagues made comment on him that he is wearing watch without working which has caused untold mental agony and hardship to the complainant. Further the contention of the complainant is that immediately he visited the 1^st opposite party showroom and handed over the watch for service on 24.11.2014 as per Ex.A2.  The 1^st opposite party said that he will rectify and handover to the complainant as early as possible and made the complaint to wait for few hours.  But Ex.A2 has not shown anything about nature of defect in the watch and what type of service done.   Further the contention of the complainant is that after waiting for few hours, the 1^st opposite party told him that the watch has major problem and the same should be sent to the 2^nd opposite party factory.  But no document filed to prove this contention. 

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the complainant repeatedly approached the 1^st opposite party for return of the said watch but the 1^st opposite party has neither returned the watch nor responded properly.  Suddenly one fine morning, the complainant received a SMS message from the 1^st opposite party that his watch was ready.  When the complainant went to collect his watch, the 1^st opposite party said that it was a false message and the complainant’s wrist watch is sent to the 2^nd opposite party, factory.  But no documentary evidence produced to prove this contention.  Ultimately, the opposite parties made the complainant to run from pillar to post caused serious humiliation resulting mental agony.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated:24.01.2015 as per Ex.A3 demanding to replace the defective watch with a new one and claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.   But no reply from the opposite parties which caused great mental agony, pain and hardship to the complainant.  The opposite parties falsely contended in their written version that the wrist watch was made ready on 27.11.2014.  In fact, the opposite parties sent a letter to the complainant herein to receive the watch nearly after 1½ years that too when this complaint is pending before this Forum is an afterthought on the side of the opposite parties and they have committed deficiency in service.   Further the contention of the complainant is that if the wrist watch is with them at least they would have produced the same before this Forum during the trial.   Therefore, the opposite parties committed gross negligence amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

8.     The contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that the 2^nd opposite party is a well reputed company and their product is the best one in the world wide.  Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that he do not know about the complainant’s aptitude and duties bestowed upon him but not denying it.  Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that the catalogue of the impugned product filed before this Forum as per Ex.B1 which, clearly demonstrate that how to use the wrist watch the product will function effectively only if the watch is exposed to sunshine, it won’t work in the closed environment; and this explanation was given by the 1^st opposite party at the time of purchase of wrist watch by the complainant.  But no document filed.   Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that the watch was serviced by the 1^st opposite party and kept ready for delivery as early as on 27^th November 2014 itself; and the complainant has not come forward to collect the same.  But the opposite party has not filed any document proves duly serviced the watch amounts to deficiency in service.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to repair or replace the defective wrist watch with a new one having defect free with the same model or to refund the cost of the wrist watch to the complainant and a compensation of Rs.30,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to repair or replace the defective wrist watch with a new one of the similar model within one month, failing which, repay the cost of the wrist watch of Rs.7,195/- (Rupees Seven thousand one hundred and ninety five only) and to pay a  compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) for mental agony with cost of Rs.5000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amount shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.       

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 19^th day of November 2019. 

 

               -Sd-                                                                               -Sd-

 

(R. BASKARKUMARAVEL)                                                       (M. MONY)

            MEMBER                                                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	15.08.2014	Copy of receipt
Ex.A2	24.11.2014	Copy of Customer Acknowledgement Form
Ex.A3	24.01.2015	Copy of legal notice of the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite parties 1 & 2
Ex.A4		Copy of acknowledgements

 

2^ND  OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1

Catalogue of the impugned watch

 

 

                                                                                       

 

(R. BASKARKUMARAVEL)                                                         (M. MONY)

            MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT