Punjab

Sangrur

CC/411/2020

Surinder Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paul Optical - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Abhi Sharma

12 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 411

 Instituted on:   26.10.2020

                                                                         Decided on:     12.12.2023

Surinder Dass Acharya son of Sh. Ganga Ram, resident of #17, Jagdish Chandar, Phirni Road, Nabha Gate, Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant 

                                                 Versus

1.             Paul Optical, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its owner/Partner.

2.             Benetton India,  Head Office: B-25, Infocity, Sector-34, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana (India) through its Managing Director.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Abhi Sharma, Adv.

For the OP No.1                :       Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.

For the OP No.2                :       Exparte.

 

Quorum                                          

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                        Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER:

 

1.             Complainant  has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties  on the ground that  the complainant approached the OP number 1  and purchased a frame of specs with glasses from OP number 1 for a sum of Rs.4200/- on 12.8.2020 vide bill number 2917 dated 12.8.2020 with the guarantee to the complainant that if anything happenes to the said frame of specs then OP number 1 will replace the same with new one or to refund its price to the complainant.  The grievance of the complainant is that on the very next date, the frame of specs broke from the left side near to hinge which resulted into two pieces i.e. one piece of left temple and second is the remaining part of the frame and thus specs became useless. The complainant approached OP number 1 with the broken specs immediately and asked to replace the frame with new one or to refund the amount, but the OP number 1 flatly refused to do so. It is further averred that the complainant is 69 years old and is unable to walk or do the routine work without specs due to weak eye sight.  It is further averred that the OP number 1 had charged huge amount of Rs.4200/- from the complainant for specs i.e. frame and glasses but provided a poor/low quality product, which is unfair trade practice on the part of OP number 1.  Though the complainant approached the OP number 1 so many times, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the frame with new one or to refund its price along with interest from the date of purchase till its payment and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that present complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrongs and that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Commission and has not approached with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the specs in question from OP number 1 after getting full satisfaction. It is denied that the OP number 1 gave any guarantee or warranty to the complainant. It is stated further that the said specs broken due to mishandling of the same by the complainant. It is further averred that the OP is not liable to replace the said frame with new one or to refund the amount as the frame has broken due to negligent handling of the same by the complainant. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, the OP number 1 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

3.             Record shows that the OP number 2 did not appear despite service, as such was proceeded against exparte on 25.01.2021.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             We have perused the complaint, version of the opposite party number 1 and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that  the complainant purchased a frame of specs with glasses from OP number 1 for a sum of Rs.4200/- on 12.8.2020 vide bill number 2917 dated 12.8.2020 with the guarantee to the complainant that if anything happenes to the said frame of specs then OP number 1 will replace the same with new one or to refund its price to the complainant. The copy of the bill on record is Ex.C-1 which shows that the complainant purchased the said product from OP number 1 for Rs.4200/- and the frame was of the OP number 2 company. The learned counsel for complainant has argued further that on the very next date, the frame of specs broken from the left side near to hinge which resulted into two pieces i.e. one piece of left temple and second is the remaining part of the frame and thus specs became useless. The complainant though approached OP number 1 with the broken specs immediately and asked to replace the frame with new one or to refund the amount, but the OP number 1 flatly refused to do so. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon OP number 1 on 25.8.2020, copy of which on record is Ex.C-5 and postal receipt is Ex.C-6 and all this evidence is duly supported by the affidavit of complainant Ex.C-4. Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-3 are the photographs of broken frame which clearly shows the broken frame. On the other hand,  it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the specs in question from OP number 1 after getting full satisfaction but it stated that the said specs broken due to  negligent handling of the same by the complainant. It is further contended that the OP is not liable to replace the said frame with new one or to refund the amount as the frame has broken due to negligent handling by the complainant.

7.             After perusal of the file and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant purchased the said specs by spending huge amount of Rs.4200/- on 12.8.2020 and  the frame of the said specs broken on the very next day. This fact is also proved from the copy of the legal notice sent to OP number 1 on 25.8.2020 meaning thereby the complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OP number 1 within 13 days from the date of purchase of the specs.  Though the stand of the OP number 1 is that the specs did not have any guarantee or warranty, but we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the OP number 1.  Since the complainant had spent a huge amount of Rs.4200/- for purchase of specs, then it cannot be said that it was not having any guarantee or warranty of the same. It is worth mentioning here that the specs broken within a very short span thus we are of the considered opinion that the OP number 1 is not only deficient in service but has also indulged in unfair trade practice by not replacing the specs with a new one of the same make and model. We may mention that the OP number 1 even did not chose to set right the specs during the present proceedings by replacing the frame of the specs as glasses of the specs were not having any problem thereof. Thus, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.4200/- being the cost of specs. The complainant shall return the old/broken specs to the OP number 1 at the time of getting the payment. We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

9.             This order be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication.

10.           The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.      

                        Pronounced.

                        December 12, 2023.