Luxury watch fails after 3 repairs, Chandigarh consumer panel orders Rs 1.26 lakh refund
Ethos Summit Store and Oris Watches India directed to pay 9% interest and Rs 10,000 compensation to a Chandigarh man
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has directed Ethos Summit Store, Elante Mall, Industrial Area Phase I, Chandigarh, and Oris Watches India Pvt Ltd to refund Rs 1,26,800 to a city resident, along with interest at 9% per annum, after a watch developed a snag soon after its purchase.
The commission also directed the two parties to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment and towards litigation costs.
In the complaint filed before the commission, complainant Hitesh Aggarwal, a resident of Sector 36-C, Chandigarh, said he purchased a luxury Oris Big Crown Watch from the authorised reseller, Ethos Summit Store, at Elante Mall, Chandigarh, on December 30, 2023, for Rs 1,26,800.
View this post on Instagram
He was provided with a warranty card guaranteeing two years of defect-free functioning and efficient repair services. However, the watch stopped functioning abruptly and was submitted for repair on June 10, 2024.
Despite assurances, the defect recurred within three months, leading to a second repair submission on September 19, 2024. Again, within two months of the second repair, the watch failed, causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
He was told that the watch suffered from a manufacturing defect and was asked to resubmit it for repair a third time, which he did on November 12, 2024. However, even after the third repair, the watch remained non-functional, effectively reducing a luxury purchase to scrap.
When he sought accountability, the store failed to provide any definite reply or compensatory service. The complainant alleged that the aforesaid act amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the store and the company.
On the other hand, the opposite parties (OPs) resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version. The store said that, being an authorised retailer of premium watches, it had acted in good faith in facilitating the sale and warranty service of the product, without manufacturing or modifying it, and hence could not be held liable for any latent manufacturing defect, which fell within the domain of the manufacturer.
It was admitted that the complainant approached the authorised service channel under warranty and that the same was duly honoured without delay.
The watch company was properly served. However, when it did not turn up before the Commission despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex parte on December 8, 2025.
After hearing the arguments, the commission observed that the complainant alleged that the watch began to malfunction within the warranty period and that, despite three repair attempts by the opposite parties, the defect persisted.
“Accordingly, it is safe to hold that the watch is not repairable, and the OPs are liable to refund the invoice price to the complainant,” the Commission said.
