Orissa

Rayagada

CC/82/2016

Kiran Chandra Panigrahi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Titan Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

20 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

                                                 C.C. Case  No.82/ 2016.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                      Member

Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,LL.B                                  Member

Kiran Chandra Panigrahi, aged about 32 years, S/o P4rahalad Panigrahi, In front of Telephone Bhawan, Gandhi Nagar, Po/Ps/ Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ………Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. Titan Company Limited, Block B,4^th Floor,22 Camac Street,Kolkata,700016.
2. Rama Krishna Agencies, Plot No.65,Rasulgarh,NH 5,Bhubaneswar-751010.
3. Authority of Pentaloons, Near Ram Temple, Bhubaneswar.                                                                                                                                        ………...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.Ps: Exparte

 

 

                                                                 JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  a  Titan Watch from O.p. No.3 on 21/05/2015  but  the watch was found defective after its purchase  for which the complainant  shown it to the OP 2 & 3 and they made a small repair but  again the complainant faced the   same problem  and the Ops failed to rectify the defects and hence finding no other option the complainant  approached this forum for relief  and prayed  to direct the O.Ps  to   replace the watch   and award   cost and   compensation. Hence, this complaint.

                       

                        On being noticed,  the O.ps neither appeared  nor filed   written version  as such the Ops were set exparte and in absence of any written version we proceeded the matter exparte.

                        Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. The Complainant  argued that the O.ps have sold a defective  watch  to the complainant and claimed that the O.ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of enjoyment of the article   since the date of  its purchase  which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the Ops  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the watch was found defective after its purchase    and   the complainant  informed the Ops regarding the defect but the  Ops  failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the article purchased  by the complainant require  servicing since  the date of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective article   is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss.  In the instant case  as it is appears that the watch  which was purchased by the complainant had developed  defects and the O.ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount and purchased the watch with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the watch   for such  and the defecates were not removed by the O.ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet his mental agony, financial loss. Hence, it is ordered.

 

                                             ORDER

                        The  opposite parties  are directed to replace the watch with a new one of the same model  and  pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- for mental agony and cost of litigation of Rs.500/- to the complainant  within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay  interest  @  12%  p.a. on the above awarded amount till  the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

 

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this                day March, 2017 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

            Member                                                                                               President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Xerox copy  Warranty card

By the Opp.Party: Nil                                     

 

 

                                                                                                            President