Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/14/470

Balakrishna AN - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director Titan Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jan 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 10.03.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 24.01.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.470/2014

DATED THIS THE 24^TH JANUARY OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Balakrishna.A.N.

Flat no.1209,

Janapriya Sai Darshan,

Sai Baba Ashram road,

Opp. Shell Petrol bunk, Seegehalli, Kadugodi, Bengaluru-67.

 

Inperson     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

The Managing Director/

Nodal Officer/Manager

Titan Company ltd.,

Titan Eye Plus Division,

Tower A, Golden Enclave,

Old Airport road,

Bengaluru-17.

 

By Adv.Smt.Jyothi Bhat

 

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party (herein after referred as Op) seeking issuance of direction to replace the right lens at free of cost within 24 hours which is of the same quality that was fitted on the left and also a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the pain and inconvenience caused to him.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that he replaced his spectacle lenses (right and left) from Titan Eye Plus at Hypercity, Bengaluru Op on 22.10.13. The Complainant submitted that, the old lenses were also purchased from Titan Eye Plus, Koramangala, 4 years ago. After about 15 days, he noticed few scratches on the right lens and after about a week, there were some more scratches, only on the right lens. In this context, he immediately went to the Hypercity branch and reported the problem. Wherein, the executive examined and told, those scratches are from wrong usage. The Complainant further submitted that, he being the regular customer of Op and being used spectacles for the last 2 decades, never had such problems. In this context, he approached Op. The executive of Op advised him to call the call center 18004198000. Accordingly, he called the Customer Service Representative, who told him to send an email with photos. Accordingly, he sent the same, but there was no response. Hence prays to allow the complaint.

 

3. On service of the notice, Op did appear before this forum and filed version admitting the purchase of the said lenses by the Complainant. It is also admitted with regard to the scratches occurred on the right lens. However, the said scratches shall be attributed only to the fault of the Complainant due to mishandling of the spectacle by the Complainant. It is also stated by Op that, the Complainant has approached after two months from the date of delivery of the spectacle with the complaint of scratches in the right lens. The Op had examined the lens immediately and observed that the scratches have occurred only due to mishandling of the spectacle by the Complainant. But anyhow, as a gesture of goodwill and with bonafide intention, the Op has offered extending 20% discount on new lens which was refused by the Complainant. Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and produced documents Annexure A1 to A5. The Eyewear Consultant of Op filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents Ex-B1 to B3. Both filed written arguments. We have gone through the available materials on record. Heard both side.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of Op, if so, whether the Complainant entitled for the relief sought for ?  
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Affirmative.  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  During the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the Op draw our attention to some of the following decisions reported in:

1) (1992) 2 CPR 128; (1993) 2 CLC 85 (NC), in the case of Classic Electronics v. Punjab national Bank

2) I (2004) CPJ 152; 2004 (1) CPR 315 (U.T) Chandigarh, in the case of East West Opticians v. Rajiv Gupta

3) III (2003) CPJ 78 (NC), in the case of Villinur Associates v. Dhanraj Denis A

4) 1 (2003) CPJ 196 (Bihar), in the case of Soni Kumari (minor) v. Dr.Nagendra Narain Bhagat

5) II (1996) CPJ 57; 1996 (1) CPR 415 (Bihar), in the case of R.A.Singh v. The Premier Automobiles ltd.,

6) II (2000) CPJ 605; 2000 (3) CPR 143 (W.B) in the case of Indrani Mukherjee v. Ashok Leyland ltd.,

7) ‘Law of Consumer Protection in India’, Author P.K.Majumdar, 5^th edition, page no.483, referred from Broom’s legal Maxims at pp.534-55

 

    8. We have placed reliance on the said decisions. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law as discussed in the said decisions. In the instant case, purchasing of lenses by the Complainant from the Op is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that some scratches were developed on the right lens. As per the case of Op, these scratches appears to be, due to wrong usage and there was no manufacturing defect. When the Op has specifically admitted with regard to the scratches developed on the right lens, under such circumstances, we are forced to accept the contention taken by the Complainant that the scratches developed on right lens are not due to wrong usage. Assuming for a moment that the said scratches due to the wrong usage, certainly other lens i.e. left lens ought to have been developed some scratches, but the said left lens is as it is.  In this context, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the Op are not applicable as the admitted fact need not be proved u/s.58 of the Evidence Act. Hence we come to the conclusion that the scratches developed on the right lens was not on account of mishandling/wrong usage, but it appears to be faulty lens.  

 

9. Now, the another question that crops up for our consideration is, what is the relief that is to be extended to the Complainant ? In this context, we place reliance on the contents of the documents produced by the Complainant which are at annexure A1 to A5, these documents are not marked. But anyhow, these documents herein referred as annexure A1 to A5. Annexure A1 is the invoice, wherein the total cost of 2 lenses is shown as Rs.1,650/- including the taxes. Annexure A2 & A3 are the photographs of the lens. Annexure A4 is the notice. Annexure A5 is the email communications. If the Op is directed to replace the right lens of the same feature at free of cost, if not, to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,650/-, we hope the ends of justice would met sufficiently. Why we have directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,650/- of the 2 lens is concerned, in the event of non-replacement of the right lens, the left lens would became useless. Hence we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative.

 

10. Point no.2: In view of our findings on point no.1 in the affirmative, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby allowed.  

 

          2. The Op is directed to replace the right lens of the same feature at free of cost, if not, to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,650/- within six weeks from the date of this order, failing which the said amount carries interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization. The cost of litigation is fixed to Rs.1,000/-.

         

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 24^th January 2018).

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Balakrishna.A.N. who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Annex.A1	Invoice dtd.22.10.13
Annex.A2 & A3	Photographs of lens
Annex.A4	Notice through email dtd.28.01.14
Annex.A5	email correspondences

 

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Waseem Nizami A, who being the Eyewear Consultant of Op was examined.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

Ex-B1	Email dtd.28.01.14
Ex-B2	Photo of right lens
Ex-B3	Photo of left lens

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT