IMPORTANT POINT
Deficiency in service must be proved by reliable evidence.

Maj. Gen. (Retd.) S. P. Kapoor, Member— This is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 26.11.2009 passed in complaint case No.151 of 2009, Sh. Chander Vikas v. M/s Bata India Limited.

2. Briefly stated the case of the complainants is that complainant No.1 owned two watches, one Cartier Watch and another Baume and Mercier Watch, which costed around Rs.1,50,000 each in the international market. It was averred that complainant came across the shop of OP, who on enquiry claimed to be the Authorized Dealer of said watches and assured the complainant for servicing the watches with one year guarantee. It was averred that the complainant gave the said watches to OP for service vide Annexures C1 and C2. When the complainant collected the watches from OP, it was noticed that the same were not working properly and as such, the same were again taken to OP. It was alleged that the OP retained the said watches for few days and the same were returned saying that the same were working properly whereas the same were not working properly. Thereafter, it was averred by the complainants that the complainant visited Kapoor Times Crafter, an authorized dealer of Cartier and Baume and Marcier, and on checking the watches, it was told that the watches needed complete servicing. It was alleged that the said authorized dealer also told the complainant that OP was not an authorized dealer of said watches. Upon this, as averred, the complainant visited OP and demanded refund of the amount paid as no service was done by the OP but to no avail. Alleging the above act of OP as unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on its part, the complainants had filed the present complaint.

3. The version of OP is that at the time the watches were shown to it, it was clearly told to the complainant that they were not the authorized service agents for these brands, but the complainants insisted on to get the watches serviced from OP and since there was no major part required for service, OP agreed to service the said watches. OP further stated that the copy of the receipts (Cl and C2) clearly mentioned the brands of watches for which OP was authorized agent and it nowhere mentioned the brands of the complainant’s watches. OP next stated that on checking the watch, nothing wrong was found therein and resultantly, complainant No.2 Mr. Vivek Sud was told that the watch was alight but if he still faced any problem, he should leave the watch for running test by wearing it on the wrist of the hand. As per the OP, since the bracelet (chain) of the watch was too short, complainant No.2 was advised to get spare links of the bracelet (chain) so that the watch could be checked in all respects. It was asserted that the complainants never showed the second watch for any defect but brought only Cartier Watch for checking once and the same was given back immediately after checking. Pleading no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The learned District Forum, in its analysis of the complaint recorded that whereas the case of the complainants is that two imported watches Cartier and Baume and Mercier were given for service to OP being dealer of the said watches, Annexures C1 and C2 placed by the complainant on record do nowhere mentioned that OPs are the authorized service centre for repairing the said watches. Thus, as per the learned District Forum, this contention of complainant could not be believed to be true. Further, according to the learned District Forum, except Annexures C1 and C2 dated 29.9.2008, the complainant had not placed on record any document to show as to when the watches were returned again to OP for the second time for repair and when were those returned by the OP to the complainant. The learned District Forum next recorded that even his visit to Kapoor Times Crafter