DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.430 of 04-10-2013

Decided on 20-02-2014

Gaurav Goyal aged about 28 years S/o Satpal Goyal S/o Jit Ram R/o # 21740, Power House Road, Main Chowk, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

Shashi Nagpal Proprietor M/s Chandigarh Optical Company, Opposite Gol Diggi Market, The Mall, Bathinda.

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite party: Sh.J.D Nayyar, counsel for the opposite party.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that on the assurance of the opposite party, the complainant purchased one eye wearing frame of Tommy Hilfiger for Rs.6300/- vide bill No.186 dated 29.7.2013 from it. After the purchase of the abovesaid eye frame, the complainant went to the marriage at Chandigarh, there his friends asked him that why he is wearing duplicate eye frame as to whether the business of his father has failed on which he told his friends that it is purchased by him after making the payment of Rs.6300/- and is not duplicate, which is available in the market for Rs.150/-. The complainant went to Chandigarh showroom of Tommy Hilfiger and confirmed that the opposite party has sold him the duplicate eye frame. Thereafter the complainant checked the abovesaid eye frame on the internet and himself found that infact it was a duplicate piece available in the market for Rs.150/- and the opposite party has sold it for Rs.6300/- on the assurance that it is a genuine one. The complainant further alleged that on every genuine Tommy Hilfiger frame there is one red and one white dot on frame and on the other side of frame red and white dots are on the opposite side and in the abovesaid frame both the red dots are in the beginning and are not vice-versa. The complainant made the complaint to the opposite party, it admitted that in all the eye wearing frames made by Tommy Hilfiger there is one red and one white dot on the frame and on the other side red and white dots are on the opposite side and in the eye frame in question both the red dots are in the beginning and are not vice-versa and even in all the frames available in its shop there was no other frame in which both the red dots were towards the same side, but the opposite party refused to replace the eye frame in question or refund its price on the pretext that it has been sent by the company to the opposite party and the same frame has been sold to the complainant. If there is any defect in it that might be on the part of the company and he is liable to get the refund in that case. The complainant has also got served a legal notice dated 3.9.2013 to the opposite party, in its reply, the opposite party refused to refund the price of the eye frame in question. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.6300/- i.e. price of eye wearing frame in question alongwith interest, cost and compensation.

2. The opposite party after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and pleaded that the actual facts of the complaint are that it is the sole dealer of Tommy Hilfiger spectacles at Bathinda and deals into the said product alongwith various other reputed brands and enjoys a high goodwill in the market. The opposite party deals into exclusively original spectacles of different companies including Tommy Hilfiger and it is on its this reputation that all leading brands deal with him. The opposite party takes proper care that there is no sale of duplicate products of any of the companies it deals into. The opposite party has supplied the original Tommy Hilfiger frame, which is evident from the fact that the opposite party has got the same verified through the CEO of the company, who has supplied the said product to it vide bill No.300045545 dated 9.5.2012. The product serial number so supplied to the complainant also matches with the serial number mentioned in the invoice and e-mail. The complainant with the intention to drag out the money from the opposite party has entered the nefarious act by levelling the false allegations. The complainant after confirming, ascertaining and satisfying himself about the product being sold by the opposite party had approached the opposite party to purchase the original Tommy Hilfiger spectacle. Even now the opposite party ensures of having sold the original product to the complainant. The entire record shows that the product sold to the complainant has been brought from the company with spectacle code on it, which is embossed upon the spectacle itself. The complainant has concocted a false story regarding the red and white dots as alleged by him.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased one eye wearing frame of 'Tommy Hilfiger' for Rs.6300/- vide bill No.186 dated 29.7.2013 from the opposite party.

6. The submission of the complainant is that the eye wearing frame sold to him by the opposite party is a duplicate product as the market value of that piece is Rs.150/-. On every genuine Tommy Hilfiger frame there is one red and one white dot on frame and on the other side of frame red and white dots are on the opposite side and in the abovesaid frame both the red dots are in the beginning and are not vice-versa. The complainant requested the opposite party to replace the abovesaid eye frame with original one or to refund its price, but to no avail.

7. On the other hand the opposite party submitted that it is the sole dealer of Tommy Hilfiger spectacles at Bathinda and deals into the said product alongwith various other reputed brands and takes proper care that there is no sale of duplicate products of any of the companies it deals into. The product in question has been sold to the complainant by the opposite party as it has been received from the company and the product number has been embossed upon the frame is same that has been sent by the company itself. The company has also confirmed about the supply of the abovesaid product. The product has been received from the company vide Ex.OP1/2 and has confirmed vide Ex.OP1/4, thus there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

8. The complainant has moved an application on dated 4.12.2013 for directing the opposite party to produce any eye frame of Tommy Hilfiger in which both the red dots are in the beginning and not vice-versa, to this application the opposite party has filed the reply on dated 10.2.2013. The said application was decided by this Forum and this Forum directed the opposite party to produce the product of the same serial number supplied to the complainant, if not produced by the opposite party, the adverse inference shall be taken against it. Sh.Shashi Nagpal, Proprietor of the opposite party has suffered the statement before this Forum on dated 2.1.2014 to the effect that 'At this stage there is no stock available of any frame in which the red and white dots on both sides are similar'.

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on dated 4.10.2013 and has been decided by this Forum on dated 20.2.2014, during this period no other product identical or non-identical has been placed on file by the opposite party. To prove his allegations the complainant has placed on file the photographs which shows the red and white dots are on the same side and not vice-versa, thus the eye frame sold to him is duplicate. On the other hand the opposite party has placed on file Tax Invoice, Ex.OP1/2, in which the product name is mentioned as 'Tommy Hilfiger 5508 Blk/Sil'; Unit Price:-Rs.2200/- and Extended Price:-Rs.2200/-. The opposite party has also placed on file letter, Ex.OP1/4, to show that the company has supplied the abovesaid eye frame to it and in this regard the company has mentioned 'This is to say we have supplied you TH 5508 Blk/Sil vide our bill No.300045545 dated 9th May. We are the official licensee for Tommy Eyewear in India and the above piece supplied to you is genuine and authentic', this letter of the company shows that the opposite party is an official licensee for Tommy Eyewear in India and abovesaid piece is genuine and authentic, but no other piece of the same type or any other Tommy Hilfiger eye frame has been placed on file by the opposite party to prove that the eye frame in question was the same frame that has been manufactured by the company Tommy Hilfiger. Furthermore the company has nowhere mentioned in this letter that the eye frames manufactured by it have red and white dots on same side or vice-versa, which shows a clear query has not been put to the company by the opposite party.

9. Thus from the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file we are of the considered opinion that the opposite party has sold a duplicate eye wearing frame to the complainant intentionally. Moreover the bill produced by the opposite party shows that the price of the abovesaid eye frame is Rs.2200/-, whereas the opposite party issued the bill to the complainant to the tune of Rs.6300/- for the sale of the abovesaid eye frame. Thus the product received from the company for Rs.2200/-, cannot be sold on such a huge profit, even after adding various taxes/charges on it, which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

10. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and Rs.5000/- as compensation against the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.6300/- i.e. price of the eye wearing frame in question as per Ex.C2 to the complainant and at the same time the complainant will handover the abovesaid eye frame in question to the opposite party.

11. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

12. In case of non-compliance the interest @ 9% per annum will yield on the amount of Rs.6300/- till realization.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

20-02-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member