DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.320/2022
Sh. Sandeep Singh Baisoya
S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh,
R/o 170, Aliganj Kotla Mubarakpur,
New Delhi-110003
….Complainant
Versus
- M/s College Stores
Through its proprietor Sh. Shanta Luthra
Shop No.20, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi-110032
- Timex Group India Ltd
Through its Chairman & Managing Director,
Sh. David Thomas Panye
Unit No. 303, 3rd Floor, Tower-B,
World Trade Tower (WTT), C-1 Sector 16,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh India.
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution :07.11.2022
Date of Order :05.12.2024
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Briefly put complainant’s wife purchased a Timex Watch for the complainant from M/s College Stores, hereinafter referred to as OP-1. The said watch is manufactured by Times Group India Ltd referred to as OP-2.
2. It is stated that OP-1 gave two years warranty on the watch for colour fading and water resistance. The said watch stopped working within one year from the date of purchase and the colour of the watch had also faded.
3. It is stated that the complainant gave his watch for repairs to OP-1 and OP-1 instead of repairing/replacing the watch, kept the watch with them for more than six months. It is stated that OP-1 charged Rs.425/- to repair the watch which was under guarantee. It is next stated that after paying the repairing charges on 28.06.2022, the watch started giving the same problem on 29.06.2022. It is stated that OP-1 sold a defective product and did not provide any after sale service nor was the watch replaced which was under the guarantee period .
4. Complainant sent a legal notice to OP-1. Probably upon receiving the legal notice OP-1 assured that watch would be replaced. The said watch was replaced with new one on 08.07.2022. But complainant did not receive any reply to the legal notice and was not paid any compensation for the harassment caused.
5. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, complainant prays for direction to OP to pay compensation of Rs.36,000/- @18% p.a towards damages, physical, mental torture and undue hardships and litigation costs of Rs.60,000/-.
6. OP-2 resisted the complaint stating inter alia that OP-1 is not an authorized business partner of OP-2.It is an independent third party which has purchased watches of Timex Group India Ltd from an unknown source for further retail, sale and has allegedly sold the subject watch to the complainant. There exists no privity of contract between OP-1 or Mr. David and Timex Group India Pvt Ltd. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable against OP-2.
7. It is stated that the complainant has no authority to file the present complaint as the complainant in his complaint has averred that the purchaser of the alleged wrist watch is his wife namely Aarti whereas the complaint has been filed by Mr. Sandeep Singh Baisoya. Hence, the complainant is neither the complainant nor a consumer.
8. It is further stated that as per the terms and condition of OP-2 Timex Brand Service/Warranty policy, warranty of the watch does not cover the following-
- Normal wear and tear
- Damage caused by mishandling of watches including damage to glass, straps and bracelets
- Damage caused by watch being opened/disassembled/ repaired/ serviced at an-unauthorized service outlet.
- Damage due to water entry in a non-water resistant watch
- Damage due to exposure to chemicals and solvents.
- Damage to the watch due to physical dents and scratches
9. It is next stated that the subject watch was first received by OP-2 on 28.05.2022. Upon deep inspection, the service team of OP No.2 observed that the watch was mishandled due to following reasons-
- Crown of the watch was missing
- Scratch
- X’Tal Scratch
10. The broken/missing crown due the acts of the customer resulted in entering of the water/moisture in the watch and it stopped working, this reasoning was categorically recorded in the service record form filled by service team while inspecting the watch. Copy of service record form dated 28.05.2022 is annexed as Annexure D.
11. It is stated that the service policy of OP-2 does not cover damage due to mishandling/maltreatment and missing watch part, the subject watch was repaired on chargeable basis. Thereafter, the repaired watch was returned to OP-1. In this regard two invoices one for Rs.42/- towards the cost of new crown installed in the watch and second for Rs.100/- towards labour charges. Copy of the tax invoices are annexed as Annexure E. Therefore, under the given circumstances and as per terms and conditions of warranty policy, the said watch was treated as a product outside warranty and repaired accordingly.
12. It is further stated that the watch was returned to the complainant in working condition however, OP-2 again received the watch for repair from OP-1 on 06.07.2022. This time as a goodwill gesture OP-2 replaced the watch with a new watch for free and same was delivered to complainant through OP-1 on 08.07.2022.
13. In light of the facts stated above, it is prayed that complaint be dismissed with heavy cost being devoid of merit.
14. Complainant in the rejoinder states that the service slip provided by OP-1 mentions that OP-1 is the authorized service provider of Titan and the Timex Group India was incorporated in 1988 as a joint venture between Timex Corporation USA and Titan Watches. It is reiterated that in one month from the purchasing of the watch no normal wear and tear can arise. Complainant has vehemently denied any mishandling of the watch as it was a gift from his loved one.
15. Evidence and written arguments have been filed on behalf of both the parties. Material placed on record is perused. Submissions made are heard.
16. OP’s objection regarding the complainant not being a consumer does not hold water as ‘Consumer’ as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is defined as-
"consumer" means any person who— (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
17. Since the watch was gifted to the complainant by his wife who had purchased it, complainant being a user falls in the definition of a ‘consumer’
18. On perusal of the material placed before us, it is noticed that subject watch was purchased by Ms Aarti on 01.01.2021 after paying consideration of Rs.3600/- . Service slip dated 19.05.2022 in the column of customer’s complaint mentions ‘water entering, crown missing’.
19. Complainant in his complaint has filed the Conditions of Warranty which states as under-
- Movement/Modules-Free replacement within two years of retail purchase for all analog/anadigi combo/chronograph movement and within year for digital modules
- Battery –free replacement within 10 years of retail purchase.
- Plating peel off-Free replacement of Case or Bracelet for plating peel off/rusting/corrosion within one year of retail purchase.
- Leather Strap/PU Strap- Free replacement within 6 months of reail purchase for manufacturing defects which includes pasting pel off or strap getting cut at spring bar end.
- Warranty Card duly signed and stamped by Authorized Dealer is mandatory to avail warranty benefits.
20. Timex is committed to service/repair all its watches for a period of 5 years and such a service (beyond the initial one year warranty shall be on a chargeable basis.)
21. It is clear from the Service Slip filed by the complainant that complainant had allegedly complained about the missing crown and water entering the watch. From the Conditions of Warranty, it is noticed that warranty does not cover damage ‘due to water entry in a watch which is not marked water resistant’. Complainant in his complaint has nowhere mentioned that the model purchased by him was ‘water resistant’. Moreover it is seen that the watch was sought to be repaired after one year of purchase. Since, the warranty did not cover the subject watch, it was repaired on chargeable basis and Rs.142/-was charged as against Rs 425/-claimed by the complainant. Invoices of Rs.42/- and Rs.100/- is annexed as Annexure-E. As the watch stopped working again OP-2 through OP-1 replaced the watch.
22. We are of the view that since complainant’s watch was not covered under warranty it was repaired on chargeable basis. Moreover, OP-2 showing its bona fide replaced the watch. Complainant has not filed any job sheet to prove that the watch that was replaced had developed any defect. In light of the aforesaid circumstances OP-1 and OP-2 are not found deficient in their services hence the complaint is dismissed.
Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
