Haryana

StateCommission

A/321/2015

RELIANCE WEB WORLD - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARPREET SINGH AND ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

D.K.SINGAL

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No. 98 of 2015

Date of Institution: 27.01.2015

                                                          Date of Decision: 22.09.2015

 

M/s Ambika Enterprises, SCO No.42, Sector-11,Panchkula.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Harpreet Singh S/o Late Sh.Shiv Ram Temporary resident of House No.826, Sector 2 Panchkula.

2.      Reliance Web World SCO No.34, Sector 11, Panchkula.

        …..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial  Member

                              Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Arvind Chauhan, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr.Harpreet Singh respondent No.1 in person.

                   Mr.Ammish Goel, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2.

 

Appeal No.321 of 2015

Date of institution:- 07.04.2015

Date of Decision:- 22.09.2015

Reliance Web World, SCO No.34, Sector-11, Panchkula and also having its circle office at Tower-F, Ground Floor, DLF Building Plot No.2, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh through its authorized representative/signatory Mr.Garry Rana.

…..Appellant.

Versus

1. Harpreet Singh S/o Late Sh.Shiv Ram, Temporary Resident of House No.826, Sector-2, Panchkula (Haryana) and permanent resident of village & Post Office Purkhali, Tehsil & District Ropar, Punjab.
2. M/s Ambika enterprises, SCO No.42, Sector-11, Panchkula.

…..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial  Member

                              Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-             Mr. Ammish Goel, Advocate counsel for the   appellant.

Mr.Harpreet Singh respondent No.1 in person.

Mr.Arvind Chauhan, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2.

                                                 ORDER

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

Vide this order above mentioned two appeals bearing Nos.98 of 2015 and 321 of 2015 will be disposed off as they have been preferred against the order dated 12.11.2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Panchkula (in short ‘District Forum’).

2.      It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased reliance 3G (iphone-R3G) voucher of  Rs.20,850/- from opposite party (O.P.) No.2/(appellant in appeal No.98 of 2015).  He deposited that voucher with O.P.No.1/(appellant in appeal No.321 of 2015) on 04.02.2014  for activation on his mobile No.9814224546.  After depositing voucher he visited office of O.P.No.2 so many times, but, voucher was not activated. After few months he received SMS on his mobile telephone from telephone No.9023218071 of Vikas web area Manager which was as under:-

“Harpreet Ji, a senior person have already forward a request for voucher no. tomorrow I will ask my executive Richa to speak to that senior person and  will reply you, “ I am not in Chandigarh.” After received this SMS complainant understand that the above voucher is lost by executive of Reliance Web World, SCO 34, Sector 11, Panchkula.”

          After that message he thought that his voucher was lost.  O.P.No.1 assured time and again that his voucher would be activated, but, to no result.  O.Ps. be directed to activate his voucher or to return the amount alongwith compensation qua mental agony etc., as claimed by him.

3.      O.Ps. were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 29.09.2014 when nobody appeared on their behalf despite service. 

4.      After going through the evidence produced by the complainant and hearing him learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

“i        to activate the Reliance 3 G (iphone R3G) voucher of Rs.20,850/- or to refund Rs.20,850/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of mobile i.e. 04.02.2014.

ii        To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom both the O.Ps. have preferred the aforesaid appeals.         

6.      It is alleged by O.P.No.2 in appeal No.98 of 2015 that it had only sold voucher to complainant.  Thereafter it was duty of the O.P.No.1 to activate the same.  It is only retailer and there is no deficiency in service as far as his case is concerned and impugned order be set aside qua him.

7.      It is alleged by O.P.No.1 in appeal No.321 of 2015 that it was proceeded against ex parte  without any reason. When summons were sent by District Forum it had already left that premises, which is clear from the NOC dated 30.09.2014 issued by Sh.P.R.Chabra owner of that premises.  No other attempt was made to effect service upon it.  Impugned order came to it’s notice when summons, issued in execution petition, were received on 12.11.2014.  In execution proceedings also the previous address was mentioned, but, summons was received in it’s office situated at Information  Technology Park, Chandigarh.  Complainant has miserably failed to show that any amount was paid to it. From the perusal of invoice dated 04.02.2014 it is not clear what type of service he was asking for. There was no deficiency in service on it’s part. Impugned order is altogether against law and facts and be set aside.

8.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

9.      Learned counsel for the appellant in appeal No.98 of 2015 argued that as per averments of the complainant it is clear that O.P.No.1 did not activate the voucher.  After sale of the voucher it was not responsible for activation.  The complainant is having grouse against O.P.No.1 and not it. Learned District forum has wrongly passed impugned order qua him.

10.    Counsel for the appellant of appeal No.321 of 2015 argued that it was wrongly proceeded against ex parte on 29.09.2014,  because, the summons were sent at the place which was already  vacated by it. This fact is clear from NOC issued by Mr.P.R.Chabra owner of that premises.  It was also argued that complainant has miserably failed to show that voucher was ever submitted by him for activation.  He has not produced any receipt to prove this fact.  So his allegations cannot be deemed to be true.  He has not submitted the serial number till date for activation. So it cannot be presumed that it is at fault.  Impugned order is without any basis and be set aside.

11.    As far as case of O.P.No.2/appellant  in appeal No.98 of 2015 is concerned it cannot be held liable for non activation of the voucher.  O.P.No.2 was only retailer and sold voucher to complainant.  It is no where alleged that O.P.No.2 sold fake voucher to him.  Rather as per averments raised in the complaint representative of O.P.No.1 assured to activate the same. If O.P.No.1 has not activated the voucher the liability cannot be fastened upon O.P.No.2. 

12.    As far as the case of O.P.No.1 is concerned it cannot escape from it’s liability.  It is specifically alleged by complainant that he submitted voucher with it for activation.  He has only mentioned mobile telephone number and name of the person in his complaint from whom he received message about activation of his voucher. O.P.No.1 failed to show that the said person was not having any concern with it.  In these circumstances even in the absence of receipt it can be presumed that complainant handed-over voucher to O.P.No.1 for activation.

13.    Further it cannot be alleged by O.P.No.1 that proper service was not effected.  Due notice was sent at the address of O.P.No.1 which was in the knowledge of the complainant. It is not proved by O.P.No.1 that  while vacating that premises new address was told Mr. P.R.Chabra.  From the perusal of the summons it is clear that the person there refused to receive summons. Complainant can only furnish the address which is known to him. Had the addressee shifted then report must have been given to that effect.

14.    More so, Sh.P.R.Chopra issued NOC on 10.09.2014 whereas summons were taken on that address on 28.08.2014. There is no evidence  on the file to show that on that date O.P. No.1 had vacated the premises.  It shows that O.P.No.1 did not bother to activate the voucher of the complainant.  It is the duty of O.P.No.1 to activate the voucher and in case it could not activate the same then it has to repay the price.  So arguments of counsel for the O.P. No.1 cannot be accepted.

15.    As a sequel to above discussion impugned order dated 12.11.2014 is set aside qua O.P.No.2 and appeal No.98 of 2015 is allowed, but, it cannot be disturbed as far as the case of O.P.No.1 is concerned. Resultantly appeal No.321 of 2015 is dismissed.

16.    The statutory amount of Rs.19,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal bearing No.98 of 2015 and Rs.17925/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal bearing No.321 of 2015 be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

17.    The original judgement be attached with appeal No.98 of 2015 and certified copies be attached with appeal No.321 of 2015.

 

September 22nd, 2015                       Urvashi Agnihotri,                   R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                  Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                            Addl.Bench                

S.K.