Delhi

East Delhi

CC/444/2021

ANKIT KR. GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO.444/2021

 

	ANKIT KUMAR GOYAL C/O ABHYAS ENTERPRISES, 5/451, KHICHRIPUR, DELHI – 110091	….Complainant
Versus
1	PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, BUILDING NO.4, RELIANCE HOUSE, GURGAON-122002, HARYANA     REGD. OFFICE: RELIANCE DIGITAL C/O RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, 3RD FLOOR, COURT HOUSE, LOKMANYA TILAK MARG, DHOBI TALAO, MUMBAI MH 400002   THROUGH RELIANCE RETAILS LTD. C/O RELIANCE RETAILS LIMITED, INDUSTRIAL PLOT NO.1, VILLAGE: DADRI TOE JHAJJAR, HARYANA – 124103	…..OP1               ….OP2             ……OP3

 

 

Date of Institution: 29.10.2021

Judgment Reserved on: 17.10.2023

Judgment Passed on: 09.11.2023

                  

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

 

Order By: Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant has alleged deficiency in service in not replacing the new TV he had purchased online from OP which found defective and was not working.    

1. The complainant has stated in his complaint that he purchased a Smart LED Television (HISENSE 4K UHD 43 inches) from OP online platform named Reliance Digital on 28.09.2021 with three years warranty for Rs.31,990/- by Credit Card.  The TV was delivered on 29.09.2021 and a service technician came to install the same on 30.09.2021 who after opening the packing of the product observed that the TV was not working and was actually dead.  He uninstalled the TV and re-packed the same in original packing and informed the complainant that the TV will be replaced within two days.
2. After the said service technician left there was no action on the part of OP to replace the TV and the complaint was made by the complainant on 04.10.2021 and it was assured by OP that the TV will be picked up within 7 business days by their logistic partner however the same did not happen.  Complainant thereafter wrote another complaint dated 12.10.2021 which was followed by many emails ending upto 27.10.2021 between the parties.  Again on 27.10.2021 OP assured the complainant that his TV will be picked up but thereafter there was no action on the part of OPs again and the complainant filed the complaint before this Commission seeking free replacement of the product with full warranty and compensation of Rs.100000/-.  The complainant has enclosed copy of invoice dated 28.09.2021 for Rs.31,990/- and copy of emails exchanged between 04.10.2021 and 27.10.2021 along with his complaint.    
3. Notice was issued and on 01.06.2022 copy of the complaint was received by the counsel for all the three OPs and matter was next posted on 07.09.2022.  No reply was filed by the OPs within the statutory period and their right to file reply was closed on 07.09.2022.  However despite of the same OP filed their reply without any explanation w.r.t. delay on 30.09.2022 and the same cannot be considered in their defense.
4. Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit. 
5. This Commission has heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. 
6. There is no dispute with regard to purchase of new TV of Hisense brand (43 inch ultra HD 4K LED Smart TV 43A6GE) on 28.09.2021 which was delivered at the place of the complainant on 29.09.2021 and service technician came to install the said TV on 30.09.2021.  When he was installing the TV then he found that the same was not working and was dead.  The said technician informed the complainant that the TV will be replaced with the new one by OP within two days.  However, the same did not happen and on the complaint made by the complainant regarding the same to the OP, the OP vide their e-mail confirmed that the TV will be picked up within 7 business days by their logistics partner however this also did not happen. 
7. Thereafter there were many emails made by the complainant and in the last email dated 27.10.2021 OP again confirmed that they have escalated the concerned to their delivery and logistic team for picking up the TV which are matter of record. 
8. Since, the right to file reply of the OPs was closed on 07.09.2022 therefore there is no defense available to the OPs and the complaint filed by the complainant goes unrebutted and there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of OPs in neither refunding the amount of the TV nor replacing the same with new one despite of their assurance of replacement. 
9. The complainant has been able to establish deficiency on the part of the OPs in selling him a defective product and not replacing it as per the terms and conditions of the warranty which caused mental harassment and agony to him. 
10. For the reasons stated above this Commission holds OPs liable for deficiency in service and orders as follows:

• OP1, OP2 and OP3 jointly and severally shall replace the defective TV in question with new one with equivalent features with complete warranty from the date of delivery of the new TV and complainant shall return the defective TV to the OPs simultaneously within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.       
• OP1, OP2 and OP3 jointly and severally shall pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment. 

The OPs shall replace the TV in question within 30 days of receipt of this order as above failing which OPs shall also pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the above said amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. 

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 09.11.2023.