Date of filing:27.03.2017 Date of disposal:30.10.2017
Complainant: Dijo Pada Gorai, S/o. Late Bhairab Gorai, resident of Arrah, P.S.-Adra, Dist.-
Purulia, Pin-723121.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party: 1. Tital Authorised Service Centre, represented by its Manager, having its
office at New OK. Watch Service, 76, G.T. Road, P.O. & P.S.-Asansol, Dist.-
Burdwan, Pin-713301.
2. New OK Watch, represented by its Proprietor, having its office at G.T.
Road, P.O. & P.S.-Asansol, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713301.
Present: Hon’ble President: Smt.Jayanti Maitra(Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant : Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1: None.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.2: Ld. Advocate Saurav Kr. Mitra.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act for an award directing the O.Ps. either to return the watch after repairing along with fresh warranty or to pay Rs.399/- towards cost of watch, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment, to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
The complainant’s short case in hand is that he purchased a wrist watch on 30.12.2015 bearing model No.NG7982PPO2J from the O.P. No.2 paying Rs.399/-, manufactured by Sonata Company. It is pertinent to mention here that the watch is an electronics watch and there was one year guarantee in respect of said watch.
Due to ill luch of the complainant the light of the above mentioned watch came into its non-working condition in the month of the June, 2016 and as such the complainant made contact with the O.P. No.1 & 2 for repairing of the watch on 10.6.2016. On that day the O.P. No.1 received the watch into their custody and issued a job sheet bearing No.1084. At the time of receiving the watch the O.P. No.1 asked that they will return the watch to the complainant on 17.6.2016. On 17.6.2016 the complainant visited the service centre i.e. O.P. No.1 for receiving the watch. The O.P. No.1 intimate the complainant that few days more will requires for repairing the same and also asked to visit them again after 10/15 days later. Thereafter the complainant visit the O.P. No.1 on 29.6.2016 for getting back his watch but very surprisingly the O.P. No.1 refused to return the watch to him and threatened him that they will teach a lesion. By getting no other alternative the complainant knock the door of the Consumer Affairs Department, Durgapur but in this time also he failed to get any relief.
Thereafter the complainant filed this case before this Forum for relief as stated above.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Heard Ld. Advocate of the complainant. It is clear from the case record that inspite of receiving the notice of this Forum the O.P. No.1 did not appear in this case to contest the same. Therefore, the case is heard exparte against the O.P. No.1 and the O.P. No.2 though appeared but failed to contest the case. The complaint petition being supported by affidavit is taken up as evidence of the complainant on the prayer of the complainant. The complainant stated that O.P. No.1 received the defective watch but subsequently failed to hand over the same after repair inspite of repeated demand by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant in this case prayed for repair or replace the defective watch with warranty period afresh or to return the value of the watch worth Rs.399/- and interest thereon and he also prays for compensation and litigation cost. The documents filed by the complainant i.e. tax invoice of Rs.399/-, photocopy of the receipt of the authorized service centre of receiving the defective watch for repair and description of the said watch with model number is also filed by the complainant. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the case of the complainant which is supported by affidavit and the complainant has been able to prove his case exparte. As the O.P. failed to repair/replace the watch the complainant necessarily faces harassment, mental pain and agony and for this reason the O.P. have to pay compensation to the complainant. Being aggrieved the complainant compelled to file this case before this Forum and for this reason the O.P. also have to pay litigation cost to the complainant.
Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the consumer complaint be and the same is allowed on contest in part.
The O.P. No.1, Titan Authorized Service Centre, who received the defective watch on 10.6.2016 from the complainant with approximate delivery date17.6.2016 but never returned the same, is directed to return the said watch after repairing to the complainant.
The O.P. No.2 is directed to replace the said watch with new one if it is not repaired by the O.P. No.1, service centre to the complainant. The O.P. No.2 is further directed if the watch is not replaced with new one to the complainant then he must pay Rs.399/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of purchase (30.12.2015) to the complainant.
The O.P. No.1 is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.500/- for mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.500/-.
The above noted directions be complied by the O.P. No.1 & 2 within 45 days from this date of order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan