Haryana

StateCommission

A/701/2017

RELIANCE JIO INFOCOM LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAKESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

BALWINDER SINGH HUNDAL

03 Aug 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                             First Appeal No  :      701 of 2017

Date of Institution:     08.06.2017

Date of Decision :     03.08.2018

 

 

 

1.      Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, 9^th Floor, Maker Chamber IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai through its Director.

 

2.      Reliance Jio Service Centre, Karan Tower, near Ronak Garden, Delhi Road, Sector 12, Sonepat through its Manager.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties No.2 & 3

 

Versus

 

 

1.      Rakesh Kumar son of Ram Diya, resident of Village Dipalpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      M/s Digital Express Gandhi Chowk, Sonepat through its proprietor. 

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member                                    

 

                                                                       

 

 

 

Argued by:          Shri Lalit Sood, proxy counsel for Shri B.S. Hundal, Advocate for appellants

                             Shri Jatinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate proxy counsel for Shri A.K. Nara, Advocate for the respondent No.1-complainant

                             Shri Rajat Pabbi, Advocate for the respondent No.2

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

The instant appeal has been filed by Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited and its functionary-opposite parties No.2 & 3 (appellants herein) against the order dated May 05^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short, ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Rakesh Kumar-complainant was allowed.  The opposite parties were directed to refund the amount of Rs.1999/- and Rs.2000/- litigation expenses to the complainant on account of supply of defective Wi-Fi. 

2.      On December 10^th, 2016 the complainant purchased Wi-Fi of Reliance Jio make for Rs.1999/- from Digital Express-opposite party No.1 (Dealer). The device was having one year warranty. After a few days, the complainant noticed some defects in the device.  He approached opposite parties.  The opposite parties neither repaired nor replaced the device.

3.      The appellants-opposite parties No.2 & 3, in their written version, pleaded that after inspection, it was found that the internal printed circuit board was damaged and the battery of the device was tampered. The dealer provided the estimate of repair to the complainant but the complainant insisted for free of cost repair.  Denying the remaining contents of the complaint, it was prayed for dismissal of complainant.  

4.      It is not in dispute that the device purchased by the complainant developed defects during the warranty period.  The defects developed within two months of its purchase.  The complainant made number of complaints dated January 05^th, 07^th and 11^th 2017 to the appellants.  He also sent emails dated January 05^th, 07^th, 11^th and 25^th, 2017 respectively to the opposite parties.  The appellants did not lead any evidence to prove that there was no manufacturing defect in the Wi-Fi device.  Thus, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.2000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be released to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 03.08.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK