Orissa

Cuttak

CC/401/2023

Anil Kumar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jio Mart Reliance Retail Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A K Samal

29 Aug 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.401/2023

Anil Kumar Singh,

S/o: Late Rabindra Nath Singh,

Resident of At:Agijala Padia,

                     Gopalpur,PS:Sadar,Dist:Cuttack,

                        Pin-753011,Odisha.                                                     ...Complainant

 

          Vrs.

 

Jio Mart,Reliance Retail Limited,

Regd. Office: 3^rd Floor, Court House

Lokamanya Tilak Marg,Dhobi Talao,

Mumbai-400002,Maharastra,India

Represented by its Managing Director.           … Opp. Party.

                                 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    05.12.2023

Date of Order:  28.08.2024

 

For the complainant:         Mr. A.K.Samal,Advocate.

For the O.P                :         Mr. P.Acharya,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant had placed online order through his son Aryan Raj Singh for purchasing a Jabra Wave Wireless Headphone Black vide order number 16968755690399796A-01 on 9.10.2023.  On 14.10.2023, the delivery boy of the O.P handed over a sealed packet to the complainant and the complainant had paid the consideration amount of Rs.1909/- also. But after opening the sealed packet, the complainant could notice that the headphone as sold to him was a faulty/defective one which was not “Turning on”.  He immediately had communicated such fact to the Customer Care of the Company and had also applied for return of the same as there was no option available for replacement of it.  A person of the O.P Company had contacted the complainant and had asked him to contact the nearest service centre situated at Kolkata in the state of West Bengal which according to the complainant is 500 Kms away from his residence.  He also received a mail that his return request has-been declined by the O.P Company.  The complainant then had made a request to the O.P Company in order to replace the defective head-set soon.  The O.P Company had replied that they would be contacting the complainant within 3 to 5 days.  After several exchanges of mails in between the complainant and the O.P company, the O.P company through their mail dated 25.10.23 had intimated the complainant that their brand service centre is at CDA, Sector-6 of Cuttack over Plot no.1371 and they had advised him to take assistance for repairing the defective head-set there.  But to his dismay, he was replied by the person In-charge of the said Digital store that there is no service facility there and it is only a sales counter.  Ultimately, when no fruitful result yielded, the complainant has come up with this case before this Commission seeking direction to the O.P either to replace the defective headphone and provide him a new one or in the alternative, to refund the cost of the headphone and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony and harassment as caused to him and  further a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the cost of the litigation of the complainant.  The complainant has also prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

Together with the complaint petition, the complainant has annexed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.         The O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version.  As per the written version of the O.P, the complaint as filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed being misconceived, vexatious, misleading, misrepresented, unsustainable, false and frivolous and is nothing but blatant abuse of the process of law in order to avail undue advantage only.  There is no deficiency of service as alleged for which it is prayed by the O.P through the written version to dismiss the complaint petition with exemplary costs.  It is admitted by the O.P that being an electronic market place platform, the O.P receives the product in a sealed packet condition from the manufacturer and gets the product delivered to the customer as so received from the manufacturer with it’s seal intact.  The product indented by the complainant was manufactured and marketed by GN Audio A/S and all after sales service shall be under the preview of brand owner.  The complainant with a malafide intention had not included the said brand owner as a party to this case.  Thus, it is the contention of the O.P that the complaint petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party.  Whenever the complainant had made any complaint, it was promptly attended by the O.P who had gone out of the way and had suggested for picking up the product and for refunding the money but the complainant with a malafide intention in order to derive unlawful gains had dragged the O.P into unnecessary litigation. 

The O.P admits about the complainant placing an order for one Jabra Wave Wireless Headphone Black vide order ID 16968755690399796A from the O.P on 9.10.2023 and had paid the consideration amount thereof to the tune of Rs.1909/-.  The said product was delivered to the complainant on 13.10.2023.  The complainant had generated a complaint bearing ticket number 697217127305 regarding the defect in the said product which was not turning on and even though green indicator was reflected therein, it was shutting off after a couple of minutes.  According to the O.P, even though the O.P is not manufacturing the said product and being the service provider of it had received complaint number 698306940627 from the complainant on 26.10.2023.  Since when the complainant had not gone to the authorised service centre in order to rectify the defect in the said product there, the O.P is unable to opine about the same.  Even after pursuing the grievance of the complainant from 13.10.23 to 6.11.23, when the problem remain unsolved, on 25.12.23 the O.P had asked for a Video clip as well as for an  image of the said product for evidence, but the complainant had disconnected the call as he was out of the station and had assured to share the same within two to three days on his return.  On 29.12.23, the O.P had spoken to the complainant to pick up the defective product and take refund of the money but the complainant had denied to such proposal of the O.P.  The complainant had not provided any material evidence as required by the O.P in order to justify the defect and had rather is still in possession of the product. 

The O.P has relied upon a case in between Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Another (2000) 1 SCC 66 and Indigo Airlines Vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Others (2002) 9 SCC 424 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that “The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainants.  If the complainants are able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the respondent in the complainant.  The rule of evidence before the civil proceedings is that the onus would lie on the person who would fail if no evidence is led by the other side.”  The O.P has also relied upon the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh And Others wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that “The applicant, who seeks aid of the court for exercising its discretionary power for condoning the delay, is expected to state correct facts and not state lies before the court.  Approaching the court with unclean hands itself is a ground for rejection of such application”.  Thus, according to the O.P, the complainant has not approached with clean hands for which the O.P has prayed through it’s written version to dismiss the complaint petition with cost.

            The O.P has also annexed copies of two sheets of documents alongwith the written version in order to prove it’s stand.

            The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit here in this case and while perusing the evidence affidavit as filed by him, it is noticed to be a reiteration of the averments as made in the complaint petition and nothing else.

            Similarly, the O.P has filed evidence affidavit through one Chirdeep Gupta working as Grievance Officer of Reliance Digital but while perusing the evidence affidavit of the said Chirdeep Gupta, it also appears to be a reiteration of the averments as made by the O.P. in it’s written version.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and if the O.P has practised any unfair trade ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him ?

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, the written version, the written notes of submissions as filed from both sides, evidence affidavit filed by both the parties as well as from the copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that admittedly the complainant had purchased one Jabra Wave Wireless Headphone Black from the O.P for a consideration of Rs.1909/- by placing indent for it through online,  The said product was delivered to the complainant on 14.10.2023 and the complainant could notice that the said headphone is a faulty/defective one.  Immediately the complainant had communicated such fact to the Customer Care of the Company and on 15.10.2023 the complainant had intimated the O.P Company about the same.  The complainant was advised to go to the nearest authorised service centre for rectification of the defect as noticed in his purchased headphone set and the said authorised service centre is only at Kolkata which is 500 Kms away from the residence of the complainant.  When the matter was agitated by the complainant, he was given a second choice by the O.P and was asked to go to the service centre of the O.P at CDA of Cuttack but when the complainant had approached the said place,  he was disappointed to know that there was no service facility existing there and it is only the sales counter.  In this context he had made several communications by sending mails to the O.P who had remained silent without taking any positive step. 

As it appears from the written version of the O.P, he had asked for a Video clip and image of the alleged defective product from the complainant.  On 25.12.23 and on 29.12.23 the O.P has spoken to the complainant to pick up the faulty product and to refund the money. The complainant had filed his complaint petition before this Commission on 5.12.23, which goes to show that the O.P had not taken any positive step for responding to the complaint of the complainant but when the O.P could know that the complainant had approached this Commission, the O.P awoke from it’s deep slumber and had asked for the image and Video of the defective product from the complainant on 25.12.23 and also wanted to pick up the faulty product on 29.12.23.  This cunning attitude of the O.P clearly signifies the defiant motive of the O.P who was not responding positively to the grievances of the complainant until when the complainant had filed this case.  Such fact also clearly signifies that the O.P was grossly deficient in it’s service which also indicates about the practice of unfair trade by the O.P.  Since when the case of complainant is amply proved here the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as relied upon by the O.P, is of no use.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and he is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him from the O.Ps here in this case.  Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.P.   The O.P is thus directed to refund the cost of the Headphone of the complainant i.e. Rs.1909/- with 12% interest thereon effective from the date of it’s delivery, i.e. from 14.10.2023 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.P is also directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment as well as to pay a further sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the cost of his litigation.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on this the 28^th  day of August,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.  

                                                                                      

                                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

 

 

                                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member