1. Shahid Razzaq S/o Muhammad Saleem brought his complaint before the Court contending that on 23-09-06 he purchased wrist watch RADO from the respondent No.2 after making payment of Rs.20000/-. Two year warranty was provided. After two months of the date of purchase wrist watch become out of order. Respondent No.2 was approached who removed the fault. After one year wrist watch again become out of order but at this time respondent refused to entertain the claim of the complainant. Respondent appeared and admitted the sale of wrist watch in question to the complainant. According to the respondent, complainant had approached them with the claim regarding "water proofing", after two months of the sale of wrist watch which was set right. He again approached the respondent after one year on 26-01-08 with the same complaint. The wrist watch after removing the fault was handed over to him vide receipt dated 26-01-08. According to the respondents if there is any fault in the performance of wrist watch they are always ready to serve the complainant who is bent upon to return the wrist watch without any justification. The legal notice of the complainant was properly replied to.
2. In order to prove his case complainant himself appeared as PW-1 and produced Sajjad Khan as PW-2. Complainant also produced receipt of wrist watch Exh. "PA", warranty card Exh. "PB", certificate of counsel fee Exh. "PC" and copy of legal notice mark "A"
On the other hand respondents produced Tahir Munir as RW-1 and produced certificate of counsel fee Exh. "RA", copy of receipt of sending the wrist watch mark "R1", photo copy of register mark "R2", copy of repair receipt mark "R3", copy of register "R4", patient discharge slip mark "R5", receipt of repair of watch mark "R7".
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Sale and purchase of wrist watch is admitted. It is also admitted that for two time complainant approached the respondent in connection with some defect in the wrist watch. According to complainant as PW-1 the wrist watch was not water proof. Complainant's claim is that second time he was not entertained by the respondents but in his cross examination he has admitted that the wrist watch in question was delivered to him after repair of second time, however, he could not remember the date when second time the wrist watch was handed over to him. Evidence of PW2 is nothing but a hear say evidence which can not given any weight to. On the other hand Tahir Munir RW-1 stated that on 26-01-08 the complainant made a complaint regarding water proofing and the second time he sent the wrist watch to the company which was handed over to the complainant after removing the fault. Copy of register of receipt and delivery of wrist watch marked as "R1" & "R2" were produced in this respect.
5. From the evidence of the parties, I have not found any deficiency in service on the part of respondents qua the repair of the wrist watch. The main grievance of the complainant in his plaint and evidence is that he was not entertained when he lodged complaint with respondent whereas complainant himself admitted that second time the wrist watch was repaired by the respondent.
Complainant has not pointed out any particular defect in the wrist watch in his plaint. During the evidence he explained that it was not water proof and this fault has not been denied by the respondents. During the course of trail the wrist watch in question was handed over to the representative of respondent company by the Court for inspection which was returned to Court alongwith certificate that the same had been tested and kept for 6 days in laboratory/service center and this wrist watch was found 100% water proof. While hearing final arguments of the parties the wrist watch in question was put in a glass of water by the order of this Court in the presence of both the parties. On the next day when it was taken out of the water no defect regarding water proofing was found. During the trail of the case representative of respondent company explained that if key scroll of watch is not properly pressed by the user the water can enter inside the wrist watch. According to the warranty the wrist watch can only be replaced if the fault can not be removed. At present this Court has found the wrist watch free from any defect about water proofing and accuracy of time. No question arises of replacement or return of wrist watch. The complainant was attended every time by the respondents and the complaint was removed free of cost, therefore, no deficiency in service has been found. The said wrist watch is ordered to be handed over after obtaining proper receipt to the complainant, however, six months extension in the warranty period from the date of decision of the case is accorded. The complaint is disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to record room after its due completion.