MANAGER, UMESH KAMATH And CO. vs V.K.RAVEENDRAN

THESE appeals are preferred by opposite parries 1 and 2 in O.P. No. 386/1995 who are aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, Kasaragod.

SHORTLY stated allegations in the complaint are as follows : Complainant purchased one H.M.T. Ladies watch on 13.4.95 for a sum of Rs. 600/-from the 1st opposite party manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. It ceased to function after a week and he took the watch to the 1st opposite party and they repaired it. After one month again it ceased to function and he approached the Ist opposite party and he took the watch with assurance that it will be sent to the 2nd opposite party and get it repaired. The watch was returned after one month. Within 20 days it again ceased to function and the complainant approached that the opposite parties with a request to replace the watch. However the opposite parties were not prepared to accede to his request and, therefore, the complainant approached the Taluk Consumer Advice and Complaint Bureau, Post West Eleri, who attempted for a compromise with the opposite parties but the opposite party was not agreeable for the same arid it is in those circumstances the complaint was filed claiming compensation. The Ist opposite party filed a version stating that after the purchase he came with a complaint but on examination it was found there was no defect and the watch was working. He again approached after one month and then the watch was sent to the 2nd opposite party, got it repaired and returned. Again the 1st opposite party was approached complaining defect and the Ist opposite party after contacting the 2nd opposite party intimated the complainant to produce the watch for necessary repairs but he did not turn up. It was also alleged that under the warranty if there is any manufacturing defect the 2nd opposite party had obligation to replace the watch and Ist opposite party would be prepared to give all assistance to the complainant for the purpose. He also stated that he is prepared to get the watch repaired and make it in good condition. If there is any manufacturing defect he will also see that the 2nd opposite party replaces the watch without any charge.

Second opposite party also filed version admitting guarantee for 1 year and contending that without sending the watch to them through the dealer the complainant approached the District Forum. They also submitted that a direction may be given to the complainant to deposit the watch through the dealer and the same will be forwarded to the Ist opposite party after necessary repairs to deliver the same to the complainant.

THE District Forum after considering the matter came to the conclusion that the defects developed frequently even after repairs and that would lead to the inference that the watch suffers from manufacturing defect. We cannot say that the inference is unwarranted, in the circumstances of the case. Watch became defective immediately after the purchase and even after repairs the defects were repeated. After discussion the learned Counsel for the 2nd opposite party agreed to replace the watch. We feel in the circumstances of the case the awarding of Rs. 600/-is not justified. In the circumstances of the case we hold that complainant is entitled to get Rs. 300/-as cost. In the result, we direct the 2nd opposite party to replace the watch with a new watch of the same model. We also direct the 2nd opposite party to pay Rs. 300/-as costs. Direction to pay a further amount of Rs. 600/-is vacated. Complainant will return the old watch to the 1st opposite party for forwarding it to the 2nd opposite party. THE appeals are disposed of as above. Appeals disposed of. ____________