Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/65

Deepak Ahuja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Titan Industries Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO. 65/15

Deepak  Ahuja  S/o Late Sh. Ravi Kant  Ahuja  R/o Flat No. No.-71 A, DDA Flats, Hari Nagar Hari  Nagar,  New Delhi-110064                                                                                                                                                                                            …….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. Titan  Industries Ltd.,   Through  Manager,  World  Titan Store,  Ground Floor -7, TDI  Mall, RajouriGarden  New Delhi-110027.                                         

      

2. Shoppers Stop  Limited Through Manager,  Shoppers Stop Ltd.  Rajouri  Garden Branch  Eros  Mall, Rajouri Garden              New Delhi -110027         ….DELELTED VIDE ORDER 02/12/2016                 

 

3. Titan Industries  LtdThrough  Regional Manager ( North) 213 A, Okhla  Industrial Estate,                                                                   New Delhi-110070.                                            …                                                                                  ..Opposite  Parties.

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant  had purchased a  wrist watch  of make     “ TOOMY HILFIGER”  Model no. TH 1791032J on 14.07.2014 from  Shoppers Stop, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi- 110027 for an amount of Rs. 9,280/-  by availing  20% discount vide  bill  Exhibit  Annexure-A-1.  The watch carried  warranty  period of 2 years.   It has  been further stated that 27.09.2014 the watch  suddenly  stopped working  and then was taken to authorized  service centre by the name of ‘World of Titan’ at
Rajouri Garden the service  advisor assured  the complainant to get the watch  repaired or replaced if the same  was found  beyond  repair. On 14.10.2014 the  complainant  visited the service  centre   where  he was told that it will take some more  time to rectify  the  defect of the watch.  After 15 days thereafter he received back the watch in  a working condition  from the service  centre but it was carrying so many scratch on the glass of the dial of the watch  and he immediately brought this fact  to the knowledge of service  advisor  but  of no avail.  He informed  the Titan  company at the complaint number 1800266123 and   got a new registration No. 695743 but of no avail.  Therefore, he filed the present complaint with refund of  Rs. 9,280/- as cost of watch, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account   and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation cost. 

2.     OP -1 and OP -3 filed reply.  Whereas  the name of the  OP-2  was deleted    by the complainant.  OP-1 and OP-3  took preliminary objection as complainant was not  maintainable  as no cause of action  ever arose against  OP-1 and OP-3 .  The watch  in question was not purchased  from  OP-1 and OP-3 nor OP-1 & OP-3 are the manufacturer of  Toomy  Hilfiger watch.

3.     On merit OP-1 and OP-3   admitted that complainant had  purchased the watch  and  prayed that the OP-1 and OP-3  for rectification of defect /replacement  of the watch. 

4.     Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts stated in the complaint. On the other hand Sh. Mukesh Gautam,  Manager –Legal has filed his affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P.  Written submissions have also been filed by both the parties.

5.     We have heard  Counsel for parties  and perused the record.

6.     The factual position is not in dispute. During the course of arguments by the parties on 30.07.2018, counsel for OP-1 and OP-3 stated that they were willing to repair the watch since very beginning but the complainant   never approached them before.  The counsel  for OP-1 and OP-3  Sh. Manoj Yadav further stated that  both OPs are ready to give new watch of the price of the watch involved in the  present  complaint  in full and final statement of  claim of complainant.  This  offer was  agreed to by Sh.  Amit Satija  Counsel for complainant, but, he contended  that complainant must be  compensated for inconvenience  and harassment.

7.     Since amicable settlement  has taken place arrived between  the parties we, therefore, direct  OP-1 and OP-3  to provide new watch  to the complainant of the price of the  watch purchased by the complainant vide invoice  dated 14.07.2014. Since the complainant has been prosecuting this complaint  for more than three years it would be just and appropriate to award compensation to the complainant towards harassment and litigation charges to the tune of Rs. 7,500/-.  

 Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

   File be consigned to the record room. 

  Announced this___16^th  ___ day of __August_______ 2018.

 

                       ( K.S. MOHI )                                                    (PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                               PRESIDENT                                                       MEMBER