State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Syed Mashir Ahmed vs Swatch Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. on 23 April, 2019
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/466/2017 ( Date of Filing : 21 Apr 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 24/03/2017 in Case No. CC/473/2014 of District Kolkata-I(North)) 1. Syed Mashir Ahmed S/o Syed Mukhtar Ahmed, 9, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, P.S.- New Market, Kolkata -700 013. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Swatch Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Rectangle 1, Plot no. D4, Saket District Centre, New Delhi - 110 017. 2. M/s. Exclusive Lines, TISSOT Shantiniketan Building, 8, Camac Street, Kolkata -700 017. 3. M/s. Anglo Swiss Watch Co. 6, B.B.D. Bag, Kolkata - 700 001. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Ms. Farah Anjum, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Pratik Gayen., Advocate Surjya Kanta Roy., Advocate Dated : 23 Apr 2019 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Challenge under this Appeal is the Order dated 24-03-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-I (North), Kolkata in complaint case no. 473 of 2014.
The grievance of the Appellant is that notwithstanding the Ld. District Forum allowed the case in his favour, it did not appreciate the gravity of the situation in its true perspective. Further, according to the Appellant, though the Respondent No. 1 was hand in glove with the Respondent No. 2 and left no stone unturned to camouflage the wrongdoings of the Respondent No. 2, the Ld. District Forum completely let it off.
Heard all sides in the matter and gone through the documents on record.
The bone of contention revolves around selling a fake watch to the Appellant by the Respondent No. 2. It is admitted by the Respondent No. 1 that due examination of the watch revealed that the same is indeed a counterfeit/duplicate watch. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt whatsoever as to the fact that the Appellant fall victim of unfair trade practice on the part of the seller of the said watch.
The case of the Appellant is that he purchased one Tissot brand watch bearing ref. no. T17.1.586.32 from the Respondent No. 2 vide Tax Invoice No. SNT 393/2013-14 on 18-02-2014 at a cost of Rs. 25,900/-. However, the Respondent No. 2 vehemently disputed such fact and claimed that the Appellant produced manufactured documents to defame its reputation.
On scrutiny of the copy of Stock Register in respect of T17.1.586.32 being authenticated by B. Narayan & Associates, Chartered Accountants it transpires that a Tissot watch bearing aforesaid reference number was indeed sold on 18-02-2014.
It appears from the Ext. 'E' that one Mr. Negi, office bearers of the Respondents received one watch bearing serial no. T17.1.586.32 from the Appellant on 29-03-2014. It further appears that there was complete parity in respect of the serial number being mentioned in the duplicate watch vis-à-vis warranty card.
Notwithstanding there remains a confusion regarding the colour of the dial of the watch in question, we find that, even after 5 years since receipt of original Tax Invoice and Warranty Card from the Appellant, Respondent No. 1 has not been able to prove that even a single piece of document has been forged by the Appellant. Certainly one does not require so much time to find out the authenticity of a document.
Further, on closer scrutiny of the photo of the watch concerned, it transpires that the serial number of the watch is not written/embossed on the dial of the watch. Therefore, the possibility of changing the dial with an ulterior motive cannot be ruled out. In absence of tangible proof to show that the seal of the box was opened in front of the customer (Appellant), indications are ripe that such tampering was done at the dealer's end. Let us not forget that it is not at all a Herculean task for an unscrupulous dealer to change the colour of the dial of a watch. However, it is quite a tough ask to impossible to tamper with the serial number of a watch. In any case, simply on the basis of the colour of the dial, the identity of a watch cannot be established conclusively.
We cannot lose sight of the fact that, it is virtually next to impossible for an outsider to know the exact serial number of a watch being sold by the dealer on a particular day. Similarly, it is easier said than done for a layman to make exact replica of a watch and warranty card/tax invoice. It is nobody's case that the Appellant has a dubious past/antecedent.
That apart, in case the Respondents were so sure about the fact that the Appellant not only manufactured documents and seal of the company, but also procured one duplicate watch in order to make unlawful gain, they could come down heavily upon him by lodging police complaint and/or initiating appropriate legal proceedings against the Appellant to expose the alleged falsity of the Appellant. As we find, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not summon such courage. This is inexplicable.
It is hard to believe that simply because the Appellant lodged a complaint, the Respondent No. 1 readily offered to replace the duplicate watch through its dealer, i.e., Respondent No. 2. If there was no iota of truth into the allegation of the Appellant, it is normal prudence that the Respondent No. 1 would not volunteer to change the watch in the first place.
On due consideration of the preponderance of probabilities and taking due note of the overwhelming documentary proof being placed on record on behalf of the Appellant, we have no qualms holding that he fell victim of the unfair trade practice of the Respondent No. 2.
It is indeed unfortunate that despite being the authorized dealer of a renowned wrist-watch maker, Respondent No. 2 does not think twice to deceive hapless customers in this fashion. Worse still, instead of tendering unconditional apology to the Appellant for its unlawful act, the Respondent No. 2 went overdrive to disparage the prestige of a bona fide consumer. This is not acceptable.
Now, let us consider whether the Respondent No. 1 too was guilty of deficiency in service, as alleged.
It appears from the various correspondences being made by this Respondent that at first, it tried to shrug off the allegation of the Appellant by calling in question the competency of its own authorized service centre, i.e., Respondent No. 3 to declare a product duplicate. Thereafter, when the apprehension of the Respondent No. 3 proved true, in a bid to shrug off all responsibility in the matter, it passed the entire buck upon the Respondent No. 2 contending inter alia that it works on a principal to principal basis with its dealer.
We are, however, not at all convinced with such contention of the Respondent No. 1. The Appellant made it clear that he preferred 'Tissot' brand watch over others in view of the perceived goodwill/brand image of the company. Wrist watches are available even at Rs. 250/- in the market nowadays. Yet, brand conscious people buy branded products at a premium in anticipation of getting quality products as well as hassle-free after-sales-service. In such circumstances, if renowned brands fail to safeguard the interests of their loyal customers, the very purpose of purchasing branded items at a premium gets defeated.
That the Respondent No. 1 lacked due wherewithal to crack the whip against errant dealers gets evident from the fact that even after 5 long years, it has not been able to conclude its investigation. Visibly, being wary of the negative fallout of its firm action and its desperate attempt to keep the dealer concerned in good humour, the Respondent No. 1 refused to take any action against the errant dealer. A word of caution: giants cannot live only on reputation - the sooner Respondent No. 1 realizes it, the better.
The allegation against the Respondent No. 2 was very grave. Taking due note of the same, the Respondent No. 1 ought to swung into action swiftly and take exemplary step against the errant dealer to regain the confidence of the Appellant about its hitherto unnoticed pledge for fair business practices. Unfortunately, apart from offering replacement of the duplicate watch through the Respondent No. 2, no meaningful step was taken to alleviate the grievance of the Appellant. The message was loud and clear - safeguarding consumer interest was secondary in the overall construct. The harassment, mental pain and agony of the Appellant meant nothing to it. Being the principal, it is/was the bounden duty of the Respondent No. 1 to see that only genuine watches are/were being sold to unsuspecting customers through web of dealers. Its abrupt failure on this score cannot be seen lightly under any circumstances. In our considered opinion, therefore, the Respondent No. 1 cannot escape its liability.
The Appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.
In view of this, we are inclined to modify the impugned order as under:
The Respondent No. 2 shall refund Rs. 25,900/- to the Appellant being the cost price of the watch in question. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall pay compensation worth Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/-, respectively, to the Appellant. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- shall also be paid to the Appellant by the Respondent No. 2 as litigation cost. In case this modified order is not implemented in letter and spirit within 40 days henceforth, the errant Respondent(s) shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 9% over their respective share of decreetal sum being payable to the Appellant from the date of filing of the complaint case till full and final payment is made. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER