MOTIBHUSAN MISHRA Vs. BASANTLAL VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to this Revision Petition are that the present petitioner Mr. Motibhusan Mishra has filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sundargarh alleging that he had purchased one H.M.T. Arvindo make wrist watch from the present respondent (who was Opp. Party before the State Commission) for Rs. 569.02. We need not dilate much on the point of the watch purchased by the petitioner. Suffice it to say that it did not function properly and he took the watch to the respondent a couple of times for removal of the defects. However, on the last occasion, the respondent refused to exchange the watch for a new one as the guarantee period had expired by that time. During the course of his running to the respondent's show room at Sundargarh, trusting the reputation of the H.M.T. Company, the appellant had carried with him a Quartz lady wrist watch of his wife as per her request and entrusted the same to the respondent for adjustment of its late running. The respondent returned the said watch on 31.10.1988 on payment of Rs. 90/- towards repairing charges. A guarantee card for 6 months was also issued by the respondent. However, the watch stopped running within a week of the repairs. The petitioner again brought his wife's watch to the respondent and complained about the failure in repair. The respondent then took the watch for proper repairs. The Respondent could not detect the defect. He sent the watch piece to the company branch at Bhubaneshwar. Again he gave out that the defect could not be found out at Bhubaneshwar and so it has been finally sent to the original H.M.T. company at Bangalore. When the petitioner again went to the show-room of the respondent, he failed to trace the watch. On the above allegations, the complainant filed a complaint before the above Forum claiming price of the two watches plus compensation for his various journies from Sundargarh to Rourkela (the distance between these two places being 110 kms.) and mental agony etc.

(2.) The District Forum allowed the complaint in respect of both the watches and awarded Rs. 1,010/- towards the cost of the wrist watches, Rs. 250/- towards repairing charges, Rs. 800/- towards expenses incurred by the petitioner on his journeys. The complainant was also allowed Rs. 5,000/- as compensation.

(3.) The present respondent filed on appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa at Cuttack. It has disallowed the claim of the consumer complainant with reference to the watch of his wife. It remarked as follows: