Titan Industries Ltd. vs RAJENDRA M. NAIK

THIS appeal is directed against the order, dated 19.7.1999, passed by the District Forum in Complaint No. 21/98 whereby the learned Forum has allowed the respondent No. 1''s complaint and directed the appellant to refund to the said respondent an amount of Rs. 2,500/- with interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum from 16th March, 96 till the full realization of the amount.

THE respondent No. 1 has filed a complaint against the appellant and the respondent No. 2 alleging that he had purchased a wrist watch from opposite party No. 2 of Make Titan on 16.3.1996 for a price of Rs. 2,075/-. THE watches are manufactured by opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 is its dealer. THE opposite party No. 1 advertised the watch as water resistent. In June-July, 1996 there was entry of water in the wrist watch during the rainy season and the watch stopped functioning. At that time the opposite party No. 2 replaced it. In July, 1997, also in rainy season, the watch again went out of order. THE respondent No. 1 asked for the refund but, this time, the opposite parties failed to replace it stating that the watch was not waterproof but simply water resistent. The case of the opposite party No. 1 is that water resistent watch means a watch which can resist water upto 3 ATMs, equivalent to a pressure at 30 mts. depth of still water. Some reasonable care is expected to be taken to cover the watch from heavy rains so as to prevent the avoidable thrust of water in the watch. The watches water resistent and waterproof are different and their meaning is also different.

We have heard learned Counsel and considered their oral submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Indeed we find extreme difficulty in appreciating the appellant''s attempt to establish a difference between a watch which is waterproof and a watch which is water resistent. When a watch is advertised as water resistent the normal representation which this expression means in the eyes of the general public is that the watch is able to resist the influx of the water and its consequent dampness which, in normal circumstances, are likely to cause damaging effects in the smooth functioning of the watch. Further, there is also no evidence to show that when the watch was sold to the respondent No. 1 as water resistent he was made aware of the difference sought to be established now, between waterproof and water resistent or that the watch that he had purchased as water resistent would resist the impact of water only upto 3 ATMs which is equivalent to a pressure at 30 mts. depth of still water, as pleaded by the appellant in his affidavit submitted before the learned Forum. But even assuming that the respondent was actually aware of this, the fact remains that there is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent, whose watch has admittedly stopped functioning during two consecutive rainy seasons, did not take sufficient care to protect it from water or that it went out of order due to lack of sufficient precautions on his part. Being so we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Forum which has rightly adjudicated the respondent''s claim. Hence, we find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Order accordingly. Appeal dismissed with costs.