By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
The complaint in short is as follows: -
1. The complainant Mr. Muhammed Shafi had purchased a brand new TISSOT WATCH with reference No. TO38.430.11.037.00 from the jewelry shop of the opposite party on 18-04-2018 duly paying Rs.25,954/- and for that the opposite party issued tax invoice and international warranty card by affixing seal to the complainant. The complainant had also purchased gold ornaments on the same day from the shop of the opposite party. The complainant purchased the above watch to give as a gift to his son – in -law named Riyaz. Mr. Riyas was using the watch and in normal course of use itself battery charge of the watch had reduced and so he approached a watch repairer at Manjeri. The expert repairer revealed him that the watch is a duplicate one and it is only copy of TISSOT with very low quality. Immediately knowing the same he approached the opposite party but he was reluctant to talk to him and skipped him without any reception. Thereafter son – in – law of the complainant had approached an authorized agent of TISSOT WATCHS at Calicut named M/S Malabar gold, Manjeri and shown the watch to the experts. They also confirmed that the watch is a duplicate one. Thereafter international warranty card issued by the opposite party also had examined by them and found that the issued warranty card by the opposite party is forged one and does not match to the above watch purchased from the opposite party. Moreover serial number shown in the tag attached to the watch also does not match to the model of the watch purchased by the complainant from the opposite party. On enquiry it was also learned that the opposite party is not included in the array of authorized agents of TISSOT WATCHS in Kerala. The allegation of the complaint is that the opposite party selling duplicate TISSOT Watches to the customers for unlawful gain representing that the products are genuine. The complainant also express suspicion about the purity of gold purchased from the shop of the opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party sold the above watch to the complainant by fully knowing that the watch is a duplicate one and thereby the opposite party grabbed the hard-earned money of the husband of the complainant. The allegation of the complaint is that the act of the opposite party is a gross deficiency in service and also amounts cheating. The said watch was given to the son–in–law of complaint as gift at the time of marriage and on realizing the fact that the gift is a spurious one created much annoyance and hardships seriously damaged the prestige of the family of complainant which cannot be compensated on terms of money.
2. The Complainant states that her husband issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party on 12-03-2019 by stating above said facts and the opposite party indirectly admitted the latches on their side but denied the rest cleverly. According to complainant the reply notice dated 09-04-2019 reveals that the watches is a copy / duplicate one. The complainant enquired about the market value of the TISSOT WATCH and it was found as Rs.36,900/- at the time of purchase of watch. The opposite party sold the watch to the complainant at the rate of Rs.25,954/-. The complainant also alleges that the opposite party ought to have sold the watch by adding 18% GST but the opposite party added only 3% as SGST &CGST and which shows as the manipulation in tax of the sale. The complainant alleges the averments of the reply notice sent by the opposite party indented to divulge the hands of the opposite party and to escape from the legal liability. In the above circumstances the complainant prays for the refund the price of the watch along with 18% interest from the date of purchase and also pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with cost of Rs.50,000/-.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and on receipt of notice opposite party entered appearance and filed a detailed version. The opposite party denied the entire averments in the complaint and contended that complaint is not maintainable, devoid of merits and on experimental basis. The opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased a brand new TISSOT WATCH from the opposite party on 18-04-2018 for a consideration of Rs.25,954/- but denied the allegation that the watch is copy of TISSOT / DUPLICATE/ low quality, skipped the complainant , reluctant to respond , the experts in M/s Malabar gold Manjeri confirmed the watch as a duplicate , warranty card was forged one , the opposite party selling duplicate TISSOT WATCHS to the customers, the complainant suspecting the purity of gold sold by the opposite party, the opposite party grabbed the money of the complainants husband, the opposite party cheated the complaints husband, there is deficiency in service on the side of opposite party , that the spurious watch created annoyance in the family and damaged the prestige of the family of complainant are denied by the opposite party .
4. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party and the opposite party had replied to the notice also. The reply notice categorically denied the allegations but admitted that had mistakenly handed over the demo card to the husband of the complainant instead of original warranty card. The opposite party admitted that the price of the watch was Rs.36,900/- and it was sold to the complainant for Rs.25,954/- . The opposite party submitted that the opposite party was not being an authorized re seller of TISSOT, all TISSOT WATCHS in the stock of the opposite party was purchased by the opposite party from the authorized re seller and so all taxes are paid by the re seller. The opposite party submitted that they tendered the original warranty card to the husband of the complainant even at the time of noticing the fact. But it is submitted that the complainant’s husband was only curious to prove that the watch is a duplicate one and he refused to accept it even after the reply notice of the opposite party. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed both parties to approach authorized re-seller to confirm whether watch is original or not but the complainant was not cared to produce the watch for test. The opposite party submitted that he has collected the records of the watch from authorized re seller which would show the watch is original. The opposite party submit that when the complainant approached them with the complaint of battery as per the warranty the opposite party has repaired the same. It is also submitted by the opposite party that they are ready to redress any grievance of the complainant under the authorized warranty of the maker TISSOT. The opposite party has also contended that complainant is taking advice from the business opponents of the opposite party and on mis understating the fact that the watch is a duplicate one it is highly defamatory and it is affirmed that the watch sold by the opposite party is genuine original and made by TISSOT. The opposite party submitted that the original warranty card is with them and they are ready to deliver the same to the complainant and also ready to provide any service as per the warranty which the complainant could have availed from the service of TISSOT service centers as per the warranty. The contention of the opposite party is that complainant is a precious customer of the opposite party and they are ready to take back the watch and ready to repay entire consideration paid by the complainant though the complainant has used for the last 14 months. The opposite party contented that the complainant is in roving litigation with mellitus intention to tarnish and damage the good will of the opposite party at the instance of the business opponents of the opposite party. In the light of the contention of the opposite party the complaint be dismissed with the cost of the opposite party.
5. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. Documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A6 and MO1. Ext. A1 is tax invoice dated 18/04/2018. Ext. A2 is warranty card. Ext. A3 receipt voucher dated 17/01/2019 . Ext. A4 is Gmail regarding TISSOT warranty card. Ext. A5 is lawyer notice along with postal receipts and acknowledgement card. Ext. A6 is reply notice stated 09/04/2019. MO1 is TISSOT WATCH involved in the complaint. Opposite party produced documents and they are marked as Ext. B1 and B2. Ext. B1 is original warranty card. Ext. B2 is product details obtained from amzon.in site.
6. Heard both side perused affidavits and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether the TISSOT WATCH involved in the complaint is a duplicate one?
- Whether there is deficiency in service?
- The relief and cost?
7. Point NO.1
The grievance of the complainant is that the husband of the complainant purchased a TISSOT brand new watch from the opposite party to give as a gift to his son –in law named Riyas . During the use of branded new watch battery charge of the watch had reduced within a short period and it was taken to a watch repairer at Manjeri. The expert repairer said that watch is a duplicate one and it is only copy of the TISSOT with having very low quality. Thereafter the son-in-law of the complainant approach an authorized agent of TISSOT WATCHS M/S Malabar gold Manjeri and shown to the expert of watch at there. They also confirmed the watch is duplicate one and the complainant received the communication from Malabar watches dated 06/03/2019. The averment in the communication is as follows:-
- The warranty card provided by you does not have the serial number and reference number of your watch.
- As per the company guide lines, the warranty card should only have one seller seal. The warranty card you had provided had multiple seals.
- The main seal of the warranty card (Gold Park) is not an authorized TISSOT seller as per our knowledge.
Therefore we cannot consider this warranty card to be valid.
Due to the above mentioned reasons we cannot service this watch under warranty. I am attaching the same warranty card for your reference.
8. The letter was issued to Mr. Riyas – son-in-law of the complainant on approaching Calicut customer service centre for the servicing of TISSOT WATCH. The complainant depends the letter issued by Malabar watches Pvt Ltd Calicut to establish watch as duplicate one. The complainant also affirm that the expert repairer who was seen the watch from Manjeri to maintain battery also said him that watch is a duplicate one and it is only a copy of TISSOT with low quality . But it can be seen that the complainant has not produced any document to the effect that the expert repairer opined that the watch was the one of low quality of copy TISSOT WATCH. The only evidence to establish the contention of the complainant that the disputed watch was duplicate one is the communication from the Malabar watches Pvt Ltd Calicut. On thorough examination of the message Ext. A4 it can be seen that the serial number shown in the warranty card not matching with number of disputed watch. The letter also states that the warranty card should only have one seller seal but the warranty card provided by the complainant had multiple seals. It also revealed that the main seal on the warranty card is of Gold Park which is not an authorized TISSOT seller.
9. The contention of the opposite party is that they sold original brand new TISSOT WATCH to the complainant. According to them the watch was never a duplicate one. It is submitted that the opposite party issued demo warranty card to the complainant by mistake against original warranty card. The opposite party produced Ext. B1 original warranty card before the consumer Disputes Redressal Commission .The opposite party had a case as per the instruction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission both parties were directed to approach authorized re seller to confirm whether the watch was original or not but the complainant not cared to produce the watch for test . The document Ext. A4 is silent on the issue whether the disputed watch is duplicate one or not. The statement in Ext. A4 is regarding the serial number mentioned in the warranty card and the serial numbers there off. Ext.A4 letter proves that the gold park is not the authorized TISSOT seller. The issue whether the watch is duplicate or not is different from the serial number and the issue of authorized TISSOT seller or not. In short Ex. A4 is not sufficient to establish the contention of the complainant that the TISSOT WATCH involved in the complaint as duplicate one. So we are of the opinion that the complainant could not succeed to establish the TISSOT WATCH involved in the complaint as duplicate one.
10. The complainant has got grievance that when the TISSOT WATCH was in use in normal course itself battery charge of the same had reduced and thereby he was taken to a watch repairer at Manjeri. The repairer said to him that watch is a duplicate one and it is only a copy of TISSOT and also having very low quality. But there is no substantial evidence to establish the statement of the expert watch repairer. Ext. A3 document shows that the TISSOT WATCH was taken for repair by one Riyas who is the son-in-law of the complainant. From the above fact it can be concluded that the said watch was taken for repair work. The so called statement of the repairer made believe the son-in-law of the complainant that the gifted TISSOT WATCH was of low quality and a duplicate one. The statement of the repairer from Manjeri caused the son-in-law of the complainant to take the watch to Malabar watch Pvt Ltd. Calicut. Mr. Riyas produced warranty card issued by the opposite party along with TISSOT WATCH. The repairer of the Malabar watches Pvt. Ltd. Calicut noted that warranty card provided by Mr. Riyas was not related to the TISSOT WATCH produced for service. So instead of service the TISSOT WATCH they restrained from servicing. It is an admitted case that the warranty card produced by Mr. Riyas was not related with relevant TISSOT WATCH. The opposite party admitted the fact in version as well as in the affidavit. The opposite party submitted that the warranty card issued to the complainant was demo card by mistake. If the complainant could have produced the original warranty card before Malabar watches Pvt Ltd. Calicut, the service could have done and the dispute regarding the averment of duplicate also could avoid. So it can be seen that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. All the root cause of the complaint is the issuance of demo warranty card to the complainant. It can be seen that the opposite party produced one warranty card which is said to be the original warranty card related to the TISSOT WATCH involved in the complaint. It is to be noted that the disputed article is a costly one and it is given as a gift to the son-in-law as a matter of pride. Naturally information that the gifted article is one spurious will result annoyance to the entire members of the family and also might have affected prestige of the complainant. So it is apparent that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and we find second point accordingly.
11. Point No.3
The disputed article of costly TISSOT WATCH was given by the complainant as matter of pride to his son-in-law . The entire charm and pride in providing the gift has spoiled by delivering a demo card to the complainant. So the complainant is aggrieved by the act of the opposite party. The claim of the complainant is that to refund the cost of TISSOT WATCH worth Rs.25,954/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and also direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with cost of Rs. 50,000/-. Considering the entire aspects we allow the complaint as follows:-
- The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.25,954/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand nine hundred and fifty four only) , the cost of the TISSOT WATCH to the complaint .
- The opposite party also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and thereby caused annoyance and inconvenience to the complainant.
- The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
- The opposite party is at liberty to take back the MO 1, TISSOT WATCH within a reasonable time of three months from today.
The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy this order, failing which the opposite party will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realization.
Dated this 11th day of January, 2022.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A6
Ext.A1: Tax invoice dated 18/04/2018.
Ext.A2: Warranty card.
Ext A3: Receipt voucher dated 17/01/2019.
Ext A4: Gmail regarding TISSOT warranty card.
Ext A5: Lawyer notice along with postal receipts and acknowledgement card.
Ext. A6: Reply notice stated 09/04/2019.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 and B2
Ext.B1: Original warranty card.
Ext.B2: Product details obtained from amzon.in site.
Ext. MO1: TISSOT WATCH
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
