Order No.    15   Dated   26-05-2015.

          The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased one Titan watch being model-9162 SL02 as per cash memo dt.8.2.12 from M/s S. H. Mumtajuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. The said watch stopped running after four months. Complainant adjusted the watch but it was again stopped after more or less twenty days. Then complainant visited the shop from where he purchased the watch but they could not remove the defect. Then complainant visited the service centre of M/s Titan Industries at Park Street, Kolkata. They have repaired the watch but again the same problem arose after 5-6 days. Again complainant visited the service centre, then also the service centre repaired the watch, but again the watch was stopped. Thereafter, complainant went to the service centre and requested them to replace the watch. They have assured the complainant that the watch would run properly. Since the watch stopped running again, complainant again deposited the watch to that service centre. Then complainant wrote a letter on 30.1.13 requesting them to replace the watch. They have replied over phone and informed the complainant that the watch was in perfect running condition. Therefore, the present application praying for compensation for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice along with cost for several visits at the o.p’s Park Street service centre.

            O.p. appeared before the Forum and filed the w/v. In the w/v o.p. denied all material allegations interalia stated that after nine months of the date of purchase the complainant approached o.p. with complaint of slow running of the watch. Accordingly, o.p. has examined the watch and found that the watch does not have any problem as mentioned by complainant and the same was explained to him. Since complainant was asking for replacement of the watch though there was no defect at all, the o.p. replaced the module of watch at free of cost considering the complainant’s case as special and to render their goodwill. Accordingly, they have delivered the watch to complainant on 12.11.12. On 27.11.12 complainant has approached the o.p. with same complaint but o.p. has examined that the watch was in perfect working condition.  But again they replaced the module at free of cost to satisfy the complainant and delivered the same on 5.12.12. On 17.1.13 complainant approached the o.p. with same problem and asking for replacement. Since the watch was in perfect working condition the replacement could not be possible and requested the complainant to take the watch but complainant refused to take the watch in spite of several requests made by o.p. O.p. has stated that the watch was deposited with them and the same is running perfectly. So there is no question of deficiency of service and prayed for issuance of a direction to the complainant to take his watch.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. Complainant has stated that he purchased one Titan watch being model-9162 SL02 as per cash memo dt.8.2.12, but he did not file any cash memo in support of his contention. It is admitted fact that complainant visited the service centre of o.p. thrice and accordingly, the service centre of o.p. handed over the watch without any cost since the watch was in the warranty period. On 17.1.13 complainant approached the o.p. with the same complaint along with the request for replacement of the watch and o.p. has examined the watch and explained that there was no defect. Therefore, no question of replacement arises at all. From Customer Acknowledgement Form issued by Titan Industries Ltd., Park Street, Kolkata, we have observed that no specific defect has been mentioned in the job sheet dt.17.1.13. It was also mentioned in the Customer Acknowledgement Form that the approx delivery date as 18.1.13. Complainant did not take the watch rather made the instant complaint before this Forum praying for compensation and cost. Nowhere in the complaint petition complainant has prayed for replacement of the watch. Moreover, we find that the service centre of o.p. has rendered the proper service to the complainant and as such, there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence, complainant is not entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest against the o.p. without cost.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.