- Indrani Mazumder,
R/79, Kamdahari Purbapara,
Garia, Kolkata-84._________ Complainant
____Versus____
- World Of Titan,
48, Gariahat Road,
Kolkata-19, P.S. Gariahat.
- Titan Industries Ltd.
3, Sipcot Industrial Complex,
Hosur – 635126.________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 19 Dated 17/05/2016.
The case of the complainant in short is that on 3.12.12 complainant purchased a Titan Raga watch being model no.2498YM01 at a price of Rs.3295/- from o.p. no.1 which was manufactured by o.p. no.2. The watch had a warranty of one year. Immediately after the purchase of the watch, it was not working properly and it was running slow time by few minutes which had to be rectified manually. Thereafter the watch stopped functioning and the complainant visited the service centre of o.ps. and gave it to repair on 14.3.13. It was repaired and returned to complainant with an assurance that the watch would function properly and all defects had been removed. After using the same for a few days the same problem arose and complainant forced to give the watch to the service centre again on 2.4.13. Again the watch was repaired and returned to complainant. Again after few days same problem arose and complainant gave the watch to the service centre on 9.4.13. The same was repaired and returned to complainant. Again complainant had to give the watch to the service centre on 19.4.13 for same problem and the same was returned to complainant after service. Thereafter complainant observed that the watch was running slow by one hour per day and she requested o.p. no.1 to replace the watch on 21.4.13. O.p. no.1 humiliated the complainant in front of all the purchasers present in the shop and dragged her out of the shop room and asked her not to visit the shop again. They also threatened the complainant that if she would visit the shop again they would call the police authority. Complainant has stated in her petition that the watch was defective one and same suffers manufacturing defects. Hence, the application for deficiency of service on the part of o.ps. with prayer for compensation of Rs.50,000/-, cost and handing over a new defect free watch with similar warranty condition.
O.ps. appeared before this Forum by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations interalia stated that the watch was repaired properly and that was handed over to the complainant after service every time. In w/v they have stated that if the problem has not been removed they can do nothing but can replace the watch by a new one since that was in warranty period. It is also stated in w/v that no one can give the warranty about the electronic goods. So, for the safety of the customer there is warranty period and complainant has the option to take the goods to the service centre or he / she can ask for replacement or repair. In the instant case o.ps. have done proper service to the consumer / complainant. Moreover, there is no expert report that the watch is defective. The claim against the o.p. for misbehavior is baseless. So, they prayed for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that on 3.12.12 complainant purchased a Titan Raga watch being model no.2498YM01 at a price of Rs.3295/- from o.p. no.1 which was manufactured by o.p. no.2 It is evident from the record that complainant had to visit the service centre of o.ps. several times for the same problem in her wrist watch. Every time o.ps. assured that all defects had been removed. After visiting several times she had requested to replace her watch on 21.4.13. So, we are in the view that complainant faced problems and for that reason she requested to replace the same since the problem in the watch was not at all recertified by o.ps. She purchased the watch on 3.12.12 and she was forced to visit o.p. no.1 with her defective wrist watch on 14.3.13, 2.4.13, 9.4.13, 19.4.13 and 21.4.13. So, it is evident that the watch suffers with inherent manufacturing defects. Moreover, at the time of argument ld. lawyer for o.ps. argued that they are ready to replace the same with identical model. So, we are in the view that complainant has substantiated her case and she is entitled to relief as there is deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to replace the watch in question with a new one of similar model to the complainant and are also directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.8000/- (Rupees eight thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
