RAGHAVA MENON Vs. KUTTAPPAN NAIRPROPRIETORKRISHNAN NAIR WATCH COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in S.C.S. No. 157 of 1959 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Trichur questions in this Civil Revision Petition the correctness of the dismissal of his suit by the learned Munsiff. The facts that led to the suit may be briefly noted.

(2.) The plaintiff purchased a Kenson Dayter Wrist watch from the Trichur branch of the defendant Company on 10th August 1957 for Rs. 172 64 nP. and also a chain for Rs. 11. 22 nP. Along with the watch the Company issued the guarantee certificate Ext. P3. Within about three weeks the plaintiff found that the watch was not working pronely and therefore he handed over the watch at the Trichur branch of the defendant Company. It was kept there for a few days and was returned to the plaintiff. A few days thereafter it was taken by the plaintiff to the Head office of the defendant Company at Ernakulam and was handed over to the Head-office. After several days the plaintiff got back the watch through the Trichur branch with the assurance that the defects were set right and the watch would not give any further trouble. Within a week the trouble reappeared and on 17th October 1957 the watch was handed over again at the Trichur branch and the person in charge of that branch made an endorsement on the guarantee certificate to the effect that the watch was received at that branch for adjustment. The watch was not thereafter taken back and is still with the defendant Company.

(3.) On 4th November 1957 the plaintiff caused a registered notice to be issued through his lawyer to the defendant Company demanding back the price of the watch and chain with 6 per cent interest. To that letter the Company sent a reply on 13th November 1957 and they alleged therein that the irregularity or defect discovered in the watch was due to insufficient winding. They also alleged that the guarantee certificate issued by them was only for servicing, if necessary, and that they were not bound to replace the watch, if it was found to be defective. They further alleged that it was not their practice to take back goods once sold, nor to exchange them for other articles, similar or otherwise, and as such they were not prepared either to give the plaintiff a new watch or to refund the price paid by him. Finally they offered that, for the sake of the plaintiffs satisfaction, they, if necessary, were prepared even to have it tested by any competent and reputed firm of watch importers. To this letter the plaintiffs counsel replied on 19th March, 1958. In this reply the plaintiff agreed to have the watch tested by the West End Watch Co. at the expense of the defendant and he was also prepared to abide by the decision of that Company provided that the watch, after the test, was forwarded to the plaintiff direct by the West End Watch Co. with their opinion. To this letter the defendant sent no reply and consequently the suit followed.