Harvinder Singh Vs. Ranjit Watch House and Another - Court Judgment

Dev Raj, Member:

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it disposed of the complaint filed by the complainant (now respondent) as under:-

œ9] Rs.In view of the foregoings, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this complaint with directions to the OPs to repair the Wall Clock in question to the entire satisfaction of the complainant by carrying out necessary repairs, making it fully functional, without charging any labour charges and give 6 months warranty period towards its repair on account of any defect in the Clock. However, the OPs shall be at liberty to charge for the replacement of any part of the Clock, if needed. We order accordingly. The complaint stands disposed of in above terms.?

2. In brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant gave his Wall Clock for repair to the Opposite Parties, as its striking hours portion, had gone out of order as also for its overhauling/service. It was stated that on 14.06.2012, the Opposite Parties asked for Rs.5,500/- for repairing the said clock, to which the complainant agreed. It was further stated that after a period of 15 days, the complainant visited the shop of the Opposite Parties, and received the clock back after repair and paid Rs.5,500/- for the same (repair). It was further stated that the clock did not work properly and stopped occasionally for which the complainant took it to the Opposite Parties thrice, but of no result. It was further stated that the clock stopped working just after four days of its winding, when the bid needle (hand) reached on its digit 11, whereas it should have worked for full seven days. It was further stated that the wall clock was deposited with Opposite Party No.2, for the fourth time on 7.8.2013 for repair, and the same was returned on 2.9.2013, with an assurance that it would work properly but it again stopped working, as usual, after four days of its repair. It was further stated that despite paying Rs.5,500/- to the Opposite Parties, they could not provide the service as asked for, and also failed to do the repair of standard quality. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the œAct? only), was filed, seeking directions to the Opposite Party, to refund Rs.5,500/- paid as repair charges, pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

3. In their written reply, the Opposite Parties stated that the clock, in question, was brought for repair in the shop as dead watch, as no part of it was working and the said clock was an antique piece and was of around 60 to 70 years old. It was further stated that the complainant was, on the first day, told about the expenses of repair as the products were to be brought from Delhi. It was further stated that the clock was repaired and returned to the complainant in the month of June 2012, with the warranty of repaired items for six months. It was further stated that as the warranty of six months was given on the pretext of good will, otherwise the clocks or watches, which were not under warranty of authorized brand had no warranty. It was denied that the complainant approached thrice the shop of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant never came to the Opposite Parties in the year 2013. It was further stated that it was a hard fact that any repaired item, which was 70 years old, could not fetch life time warranty. It was further stated that as per the Policy of the Opposite Parties, a sticker is attached to the clock, showing the date of its repair to record the time of warranty, which could be even seen in the photographs of the complainant, which showed the last date of repair as 14.6.2012. It was further stated that there was no date pertaining to the year 2013 for repair. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties did not repair or touch the said clock in the year 2013. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties just to show their bonafides, were still ready to repair the clock if there was any fault in it, without charging any labour charges. However, the cost of parts, if any needed, to be replaced, shall be borne by the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations were denied, being false.

4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5. After hearing the complainant, Opposite Party No.2, in person, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, disposed of the complaint, as stated above.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

8. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the Opposite Parties had offered to repair the vintage clock as its striking hour system developed a snag. It was further submitted that despite payment of Rs.5,500/- to the Opposite Parties, the clock did not work properly and stopped working regularly. It was further submitted that the clock was not put in working order. It was further submitted that by charging Rs.5,500/- on the promise of good service, the Opposite Parties, were deficient in rendering same and indulged into unfair trade practice. It was further submitted that the clock had still not been repaired by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the order of the District Forum, being erroneous and inequitable, be set aside.

9. The Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties, submitted that the clock, in question, was an antique clock and the same was repaired in June, 2012 and the same was in working condition. It was further submitted that neither there was any deficiency in rendering service nor the Opposite Parties indulged into unfair trade practice.

10. Admittedly, the wall clock of the appellant/complainant, which was an antique piece around 60 to 70 years old, was repaired by the Opposite Parties and returned to him in the month of June 2012. The appellant/complainant parted with a good amount of Rs.5,500/- towards repairs under the hope that his heirloom clock shall be in working condition. For the complainant, it was a valuable object that belonged to the family for several generations. No prudent person shall spend Rs.5,500/- on repairs of a clock if it was to function only for a year or so. When the respondents/Opposite Parties, undertook the repair, it was their duty to make it functional when the same again went out of order. The appellant/complainant spent his hard earned money on the repairs of the clock, in question, under the bonafide and genuine hope and belief that the Opposite Parties shall repair the same perfectly and he would be able to enjoy its benefits, but the hopes of the appellant/complainant were dashed to ground when despite spending Rs.5,500/-, the clock again went out of order and is still not working. Apparently, the respondents/Opposite Parties were deficient in rendering service, and indulged into unfair trade practice.

11. The appellant/complainant, also suffered, a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, for which, the respondents/Opposite Parties are also liable to adequately compensate him. In our opinion, the relief granted by the District Forum, in its order, directing the Opposite Parties, to repair the clock, in question, to the entire satisfaction of the appellant/complainant by carrying out necessary repairs, without charging any labour charges, is not adequate and commensurate with the physical harassment and mental agony, which the appellant/complainant underwent. In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs.5,000/-, as compensation, would meet the ends of justice. Thus, the order of the District Forum needs to be modified to the extent as indicated above.

12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/Complainant, is partly accepted, with costs. The impugned order, passed by the District Forum, is modified, to the extent, indicated hereunder;

(i) The appellant/complainant shall take the clock, in question, to the respondents/Opposite Parties within a period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, and, thereafter, the respondents/Opposite Parties shall repair the same rendering it in perfect working condition within a period of one month, free of cost, and without charging anything from the appellant/complainant;

(ii) The respondents/Opposite Parties, are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant/complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

(iii) The respondents/Opposite Parties are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant/complainant, as cost of litigation.

(iv) In the event of non-compliance of directions in Para 12 (ii) and (iii) above, within the stipulated period, the amount of compensation mentioned in Para (ii) above, shall be payable by the respondents/Opposite Parties, alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of default, till actual payment.

(v) All other directions, given and reliefs granted by the District Forum, in the impugned order, subject to the modification, aforesaid, which are contrary to and, in variance of this order, shall stand set aside.

13. Rs.Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14. Rs.The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.