By Sri.P.K,.Sasi, President
The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a RADO watch by paying Rs.34,000/- from the opposite party on 7/7/2010. At the time of purchasing, the opposite party provided a warranty card along with the purchase bill. Whereas, the watch showed complaints within one year and twice repaired. At present the watch is not working and became useless. All these facts were informed by the complainant to the opposite party. But the opposite party instead of redressing his grievance, behaved badly towards the complainant. They were not ready either to repair or to replace the watch. On 24/9/12 the complainant issued a lawyer notice. Then on 29/9/12 the opposite party collected the watch for repairing and returned by stating that the complaints are rectified. The complainant purchased the RADO watch by paying such a huge amount by believing the words of the opposite party that the watch has got life long guarantee. According to the complainant the watch became useless. Hence this complaint is filed either to get the watch replaced or for getting compensation.
2. On receiving the notice, opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed detailed version. In the version opposite party admitted the sales, whereas he has denied all the allegations raised against him in the complaint. Opposite party stated that he is only a person employed by the Al Ahali business trade links (P) Ltd. and he is not empowered or authorized to represent the company or M/s.Malabar Gold. He is only an employee and contended that the company Al Ahali trade links pvt. Ltd. is not made a party in this complaint, who are responsible for the sale of the watch in dispute. He also contended that the manufacturer of the watch has also not made a party in this case. Hence the complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties. He strongly denied the allegation raised by the complainant that the watch is not functioning completely and became useless. He further stated that a minor complaint was reported by the complainant and that was immediately repaired and in fact that was caused only because of rough and careless use of the complainant. Moreover, on perusal of the watch, it was found that the watch was opened and repaired previously by some other unauthorized and unexperienced persons. That itself is against warranty condition and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. The opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
3. Then the case was posted for evidence and the points for consideration are that :
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable ?
2) Whether the opposite party has committed any deficiency in service ?
3) If so what costs and reliefs?
4. From the side of complainant he has filed proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and stated all the contentions raised in the complaint. Six documents produced and marked as Exts.P1 to P6. Ext.P1 is purchase bill dated 7/7/10, Ext.P2 is repair bill issued by the opposite party company dated 29/9/12, Ext.P3 is copy of lawyer notice dated 24/9/12, Ext.P4 is warranty card, Ext.P5 is postal receipt and Ext.P6 is A/D card. From the side of opposite party, he has filed counter proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and narrated all the contentions raised in the version in detail. Both sides filed detailed argument notes and we heard in detail also.
5. The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a RADO watch by paying huge amount as per Ext.P1 retail invoice from Al Ahali business links (P) Ltd. The watch showed complaints within one year and the opposite party repaired the watch, even then the complaints are not rectified. Hence the complainant demanded for replacement of the watch or returning the amount. According to the complainant the watch has got manufacturing defect and it became completely useless.
6. Whereas, the opposite party has contended that he is only an employee of the company who sold the watch and received the amount from the complainant. He further contended that the company who sold the watch is not made a party in this complaint and the manufacturer of the watch is also not made a party in this complaint, who are responsible for the alleged defects of the watch. We have perused the contents of the affidavits filed from both sides as well as the documents submitted by the complainant. Ext.P1 retail invoice would go to show that the complainant has purchased RADO watch from Al Ahali business trade links Pvt. Ltd. on 7/7/10. Ext.P2 repair bill is issued by Malabar Watches Pvt. Ltd., Ernakulam dated 29/9/12. Ext.P3 lawyer notice is issued to Al Ahali business trade links pvt. Ltd. (Malabar Gold) Thrissur. Ext.P4 guarantee card is issued by Malabar Watches Pvt. Ltd. There is no documents submitted by the complainant to prove his case against this opposite party except Ext.P5 postal receipt and Ext.P6 A/D card. The Ext.P3 lawyer notice is issued against Al Ahali business trade links pvt. Ltd. But that was sent to the Manager, Al Ahali business trade links. Since there is a specific contention raised by the opposite party that he is only an employee of the company who sold the watch, it is the burden of the complainant to prove his case against this opposite party. Neither any documentary evidence nor oral evidence adduced to prove his case. The main allegation raised by the complainant is that the watch has got manufacturing defect. Hence prayed for either for replacement or for returning the money based on the guarantee card. The guarantee card is issued by Malabar Watches Pvt. Ltd. They are also not impleaded in this case. Since manufacturing defect is raised, the manufacturer has to be impleaded in this case. That is not done by the complainant. Therefore, we find that the complaint as such is not maintainable by law.
7. The cause of action stated in the complaint is against the firm from where he purchased the watch. The prayer of the complainant is for either replace the watch or return the amount by the opposite party. Here there is no proof produced before us to show that the opposite party has sold any watch to the complainant by accepting any amount. Therefore considering the points discussed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the complainant could not bring out any case against the opposite party. The opposite party is not impleaded as a representative capacity also.
8. In the result we dismiss this complaint with cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the opposite party. The cost has to be paid within one month from receiving copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of November 2015.
