Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/113/2020

Jiwan Mehta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Talwar Jewllery house and anothers - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Saini, Adv.

01 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	113/2020
Date of Institution	:	13.02.2020
Date of Decision	:	01.09.2023

 

                     

            

 

Jiwan Mehta s/o late Sh.T.D.Mehta, aged about 72 years r/o H.No.939, Sector 8, Panchkula.

                 ...  Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Talwar Jewellery House, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh 160002 through its Proprietor 

 

2]  Rolex Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd., N.M.Wadia Building, 1^st Floor, 123, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Mumbai-400023 –India through its Managing Director

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                  MEMBER

 

Present:

Ms.Payal Malhotra, Adv. proxy for Sh.Gaurav Saini, Counsel for the complainant Sh.Dhruv Walia, Counsel for OP No.1 Sh.Gurmandeep Singh Sullar, Counsel for OP No.2.

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Concisely put, the complainant purchased a Rolex Wrist Watch, Model 116334, Sr.No.291N23C4 from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 05.05.2015 for Rs.5,09,000/- (Ann.C-1). It is alleged that soon after the purchase, the said watch started giving problems regarding its functioning as the complainant was compelled to reset the time on his watch every now and then and the same used to stop after every few hours of usage. When the complainant did not get any satisfactory response from OP No.1, he approached OP No.2 vide emails dated 10.05.2016 and 13.05.2016 and only thereafter, OP No.1 got the watch rectified from its own service center.  Thereafter the watch worked fine for some time and started giving the same problems.  It is alleged that in the month of November/December, 2019, the OP No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.70,000/- for rectifying the fault of the watch. The complainant wrote numerous e-mails to OP No.2 who informed vide email dated 11.12.2019  (Ann.C-4) him that the guarantee of the watch had expired as the same was valid for 2 years from the date of its purchase. However, no warranty card for two years was issued. The complainant had alleged that the OPs have sold a substandard watch and thereafter their refusal to rectify the defect or to refund the cost, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to replace the watch or to refund its price, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.

 

2]       The OP No.1 has filed written version and while admitting sale of the watch in question denied any defect or problem in it.  It is also denied that that substandard product has been sold to the complainant.  It is submitted that OP No.1 is neither involved in the manufacturing of Rolex branch watches nor is it the authorized service centre for Rolex watches.  It is also submitted that the complainant alleged that the watch had to be reset regularly and on his approaching answering OP, it was conveyed to him that unlike a quartz watch that runs on battery, a Rolex watch is a mechanical watch equipped with a self winding system.  It is pleaded that the watch in question has been conceived to be worn on a daily basis at least 8 to 10 hours a day by people with at least average physical activity.  It is also pleaded that if a mechanical watch has not been worn for more than 24 hours, it must be thoroughly hand wound before putting it back on the wrist to make sure that the main spring can provide sufficient power to keep the watch going and this is made clear from the user manual for the watch is made available to customer at the time of purchase as part of the packaging itself.  It is stated that in 2016 when the complainant approached the answering OP NO.1, he had refused to adhere to the advice of answering OP regarding the problem being faced by him simply being a feature of the watch and not a defect until the OP No.2 had reiterated the same vide email dated 16.5.2016 (Ann.A-2). It is asserted that the alleged issue being faced by the complainant is not a defect but a feature of the watch which is occurring due to the fact that the complainant is not using the watch in the manner in which it is required to be used.  It is also asserted that under no circumstances was the watch in question inspected/serviced or could have been inspected/serviced by the answering OP.  It is further asserted that the watch was never received by the answering OP to forward the same to the OP No.2 for any intervention. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.         

         The Opposite Party No.2 has also filed written version stating that the complainant has purchased the watch from OP No.1 and as such he is not a consumer qua them.  It is stated that Rolex watches are imported from Rolex S.A. directly by authorized retailers and sold by such retailers in India and answering OP/RWCPL, now authorized service centre for Rolex Watches in India, started providing such services only from Nov., 2018. It is submitted that even on the complainant’s own case there is no defect in the watch as unlike quartz watches which runs on battery, the watch in question is a mechanical watch equipped with a self winding system and the same has been conceived to be worn on daily basis at least 8 to 10 hours a day by people with at least average physical activity. If a mechanical watch has not been worn for more than 24 hours, it must be thoroughly hand wound before putting it back onto the wrist to make sure that the main spring can provide sufficient power to keep the same going even during periods of little activity. The same was also conveyed to the complainant and it is also clear from the user manual of the watch (Ann.OP-2/2). It is pleaded that the complainant never sent the watch in question to OP No.2 for its inspection or for service after raising alleged issue with the watch in Dec., 2019 despite exchange of correspondence, so the complainants allegation of any refusal on the part of OP No.2 to rectify the alleged defect in the watch or to service it is false.   It is also pleaded that since the warranty of the watch in question expired on 5.5.2018, so OP No.2 is not under obligation to rectify or service the said watch free of charges and the same will be done subject to payment of applicable charges by the complainant. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying all other allegations, the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant contoverting the assertion of the OP No.1 made in its reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record including written arguments.

 

6]       From the documents on record as well as user manual of Rolex Watch in question, it is evident that it is a mechanical watch equipped with a self winding system.  It being a mechanical watch requires manual winding to keep it running as well as for re-setting of time & date manually. Therefore, the claim of the complainant that manual resetting of the Rolex Watch in question is due to defect in it, is totally wrong. Instead this is a feature of the watch in question being a mechanical watch. More so there is no expert opinion/report from the side of complainant to establish the said issue in the watch to be a manufacturing defect. Further the two years warranty period of the subject watch, purchased in the year 2015 had already expired well before filing the present complaint in the year 2020 nor there is any record about any repair or service of the watch in question during the warranty period.

 

7]       Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we are of the view that no case of deficiency in service is made out against the OPs.  Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned. 

Announced                                                     

01.09.2023                                                               sd/-

(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER