Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 556

                                                                   Instituted on     : 22.09.2021

                                                                   Decided on       : 29.04.2024.

Parveen Sharma s/o Sh. Ramroop R/o Plot no.37, Peepalwaligali, Circular Road, near Sunaria Chowk, Janta colony, Rohtak.

                                                                                      ..............Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. Reliance Digital Limited, Reliance Digital, Property no.1015A and 1018, Ward No.22, Minar Party Hall, Near Mansarover Park, Delhi Road, Rohtak through Store Manager.
2. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., A-24/6, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Authorized person.
3. Mr. Amit Sharma, LG Branch Office, Near Meerut Chowk, Karnal.

                                                                        ……….Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh.Amit Kumar, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.

                   Opposite party No.2  and 3 exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are thathe had purchased a fully automatic washing machine for Rs.32250/- from the opposite party no.1 with one year extended warranty. It was told by the salesman Amit that as per scheme, two vouchers worth Rs.10000/- and Rs.15000/- would be given to the complainant after 10-12 days of purchase of the product. The officials of opposite party no.1 did not install the machine properly and also did not tell about the operating system properly. On the complaint made by the complainant through email, the machine was installed by the engineer. After 15-20 days complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to give the voucher as assured by them but despite repeated requests, only one voucher amounting to Rs.15000/- was received by the complainant through email dated 24.08.2021. But other voucher was not given to him.  Complainant also served a legal notice dated 26.08.2021 to the opposite party but to no effect.  Due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, complainant suffered a huge loss. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of washing machine or the vouchers  of Rs.25000/- be got encashed  and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, noticeswere issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No.2 & 3 not received back either served or unserved. Hence after expiry or statutory period of 30 days, the opposite party No.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.11.2021 of this Commission.  Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complaint has been filed against non existent legal entity as the name of the Company is Reliance Retail Limited & not Reliance digital; Limited & the store name is Reliance digital which is been operated by Reliance Retail Limited. . It is further submitted that opposite party No.1 is a seller of various electronic items of many manufacturers at its stores. It is submitted that the said discount voucher offer was floated by the opposite party no.2 . complainant desirous of availing any of such schemes are sole choice of any customer visiting the store & was to be honoured by the opposite party No.2 and in the entire process of the same the store/opposite party No.1 is not even remotely connected.  It is further submitted that opposite party No.1 has no role in the disbursal of the discount voucher offered by the representative of the opposite party no.2 but still as a goodwill gesture took all possible steps so that the said Discount vouchers are issued to the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

 3.               Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavits Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on dated 20.01.2022. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 failed to conclude its evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities and the evidence of opposite party No.1 was closed by the order dated 20.10.2022 of this Commission.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present case, grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased a washing machine from the opposite party No.1 on 20.06.2021  andas per the offer of opposite parties, two scheme vouchers worth Rs.10000/- and Rs.15000/- were to be given by the opposite parties alongwith the product but despite his repeated requests, only one voucher of Rs.15000/- was given to the complainant on 24.08.2021 but the same was not encashed. We have perused the documents placed on record by the complainant. As per voucher details Ex.C1, there was a scheme of getting gift vouchers upto Rs.35000/- and the gift voucher values vary from product to product. As per Ex.C2, the Voucher value on  FLWM(Front loading washing machine) was Rs.10000/-. As per the emails Ex.C3, the vouchers were not encashed  so the complainant requested the opposite parties to do the needful to encash the vouchers or to take back machine and refund the money.  As per email Ex.C4, complainant has submitted that he was assured by the opposite parties that he will  get 2 type of coupons worth Rs.18000/- but unfortunately he was still waiting for the same. On the other hand, Customer Support Team i.e. Reliance Digital has replied to the emails Ex.C3 mentioning therein that: “We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused to you. As per your below mail, we have already shared your concern regarding the vouchers pending to be given to the respective store team for inspection” and in another reply they have written that : “Dear customer. We hope that your concern has been resolved to your satisfaction, get in touch with our team in case you need any further support”. This reply shows that the opposite parties have fed a stereotype reply in their system and without resolving the issue they sent this reply from their system. No document has been placed on file by the opposite party No.1 despite availing sufficient opportunities to prove the fact that both the coupons were given to the complainant and the same were got encashed. No document is placed on record to prove the fact that what was the exact benefit/terms and conditions of scheme or whether any benefit was given to the complainant or not.  As per reply filed by opposite party no.1, the name of company is Reliance Retail limited &not Reliance Digital Limited and the store name is Reliance digital limited which is being operated by Reliance Retail Limited. Hence it is proved that opposite party no.1 i.e. Reliance Digital is the store of the company Reliance Retail Limited.  We are not fully convinced with the objection raised by the opposite party no.1 in his written statement that the scheme was provided by opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.1 only enrolled the same. If any assurance has been given by the agent of respondent no.1 in that situation they should fulfil the same as per terms and conditions of the store or the product. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. Complainant himself in para no.5 of his complaint has submitted that he has received a voucher amounting to Rs.15000/- but the same has not been placed on record by the complainant for the reasons best known to him.  As per our view terms and conditions are mentioned on the voucher that how the same can be redeemed. But the same has not been placed on record. As the exact benefit of the scheme has not been proved on file either by the complainant or the opposite parties. As such in our view it would be suffice to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.10000/- to the complainant against the alleged vouchers.

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as a lump sum compensation against the alleged vouchers  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expensesto the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite parties No.1 to 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) from the date of decision i.e. 26.04.2024 till its realisation.

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

29.04.2024.

                                                          ........................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

                                                          ……………………………….

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member