Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/749/2022

PAWAN DEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED AJIO - Opp.Party(s)

PRANAB BANSAL

16 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	749 of 2022
Date  of  Institution	:	31.10.2022
Date   of   Decision	:	16.09.2024

 

 

 

 

Pawan Deep Singh s/o Sh.Gian Singh, aged about 28 years, R/o House No.1445/15, Sector 29-B, Chandigarh 160030.

             … … … Complainant

 

Versus

Reliance Retail Limited (AJIO), Regd. Office: 3^rd Floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400002, Customer Service number: 1800-889-9991, Email:customerservice@ril.com, customercare@ajio.com.

   … … … Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA,       MEMBER

                               

Argued by:    Ms.Pratibha Keswani (through VC) and Sh.Pranab Bansal, Counsel for Complainant.

OP ex-parte.

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       By this common order, we propose to dispose off two connected consumer complaints i.e. present consumer complaint and another consumer complaint, detailed below, having common questions of law & facts:-

 

1	2	3		4	5
Sr. No.	C.C. No.	Complainant’s Name	Vs.	Opposite Party(s)  Name	Date of Filing
	749/2022	Pawan Deep Singh	Vs.	Reliance Retail Limited (AJIO)	31.10.2022
	750/2022	Pawan Deep Singh	Vs.	Reliance Retail Limited (AJIO)	31.10.2022

 

 

2]       The facts are gathered from C.C.No.749/2022 – Pawan Deep Singh Vs. Reliance Retail Limited (AJIO).

 

3]       The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he purchased a 22 KT The Adamnan Yellow Gold Drop Earrings 5.36 gm for Rs.5226.89/- after discount (Original price of the product was Rs.7146/-) on 18.02.2022 with order# FL0366975509. As per the invoice dated 18.02.2022, the delivery date of the product was 03.03.2022. It is submitted that when product was not delivered on 03.03.2022, the complainant raised a complaint through Mobile App and called Customer Care. The AJIO’s Customer Care Executive lodged the complaint and told that product will be delivered on or before 10.03.2022. It is submitted that on 07.03.2022, the complainant got a message from the OP through SMS ‘the order is cancelled due to some unavoidable reasons’. The complainant checked the status of the said product on AJIO App and Website, where it was mentioned that ‘the order is being cancelled as per client request’. The complainant has pleaded that he had never initiated any such request and never applied for cancellation of his order. Thereafter on 08.03.2022, the complainant e-mailed the OP but did not get any proper justification for the order cancellation. The OP on the same day replied to the e-mail of the complainant by saying ‘the AJIO order FLO366975509, contained a product which was the last item in our fulfillment center. This product did not pass our quality check and that’s why we had to cancel it’.

    The complainant had believed the false assurances made by the OP at the time of placing the order dated 18.02.2022 and waited for more than three weeks, but the OP with a malafide intention and in order to mislead the complainant, cancelled the order. It is further stated that after repeated attempts by the complainant to request the OP to rectify the error on their part, the AJIO’s Customer Care Executive told the complainant to place the product again. On 14.03.2022, the complainant visited the site of the OP, where cost of the same product was shown as Rs.44,921/-. It is submitted that the complainant raised an online complaint at consumerhelpline.gov.in to get the product delivered or provide the compensation of the amount which is equivalent to the product’s current price i.e. Rs.44,921/- not Rs.5226.89/-, but to the utter shock of the complainant, the OP refunded the amount of Rs.5226.89/-. It is submitted that from this conduct of the OP, it is clear that the OP is in the business of wrongfully gaining from and misleading the customers and thus it amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant waited for more than three weeks for delivery of product; spend much valuable time, raising complaints and contacted customer care but all in vain. A legal notice was also served on the OP but to no effect. Hence, this complaint has been filed with a prayer that the OP be directed to deliver the same product as ordered by the complainant at the same amount i.e. Rs.5226.89/- or to pay the current market price of the said product as on date along with interest and to pay compensation & litigation expenses etc.  

 

4]       OP did not turn up despite service of notice, hence, OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.02.2023

5]       Complainant led evidence in support of his contention.

6]       We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through entire documents on record.

7]       It is observed that on 18.02.2022, complainant has ordered for a product mentioned in the complaint by paying Rs.5226.89/- after discount on the original price of the product that was Rs.7146/- and delivery of the said product was to be provided on 03.03.2022 but OP could not deliver the same and sent a message to the complainant stating that ‘the order is cancelled due to some unavoidable reasons’ and further e-mailed to the complainant saying that ‘AJIO order FLO366975509, contained a product which was the last item in fulfillment center. This product did not pass our quality check; and that’s why we had to cancel it’. So the reasons provided by OP that it is last item in their fulfillment center and therefore they could not deliver the same as the product did not pass quality check and that’s why they had cancelled the order. So in their e-mail, they have clarified that it was last item and the same could not be delivered due to its failure in quality check, hence, they cancelled it. It is a valid ground for cancellation of the product. It is obvious for the OP, not to supply item to the complainant because other no similar item was available with OP. If one does not have similar item then it is natural for him not to provide the same to other person. Moreover, the OP has made the refund of amount of Rs.5226.89/-. The complainant has alleged that OP is wrongly gaining by misleading the customers but failed to prove the same because OP has received an amount of Rs.5226.89/- on 18.02.2022 and the same was refunded and complainant has accepted the same without any protest. Moreover, the OP has given a valid reason for not delivering the above said product. Rather, it is the complainant who is demanding huge compensation of Rs.50,000/- after payment of just Rs.5226.89/- and despite the fact that he received the full refund of Rs.5226.89/- from OP. Every prudent person using internet facilities knows the rate of Gold and well aware that ‘Pure Gold’ of 5.36 gm 22 Kt could not be available for just Rs.5226.89/-. The terms “Yellow Gold” and “American Gold” etc. are used for artificial jewellary only by the professions and society. Hence, it cannot be said that OP has committed any unfair trade practice. 

8]       Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, the present complaint as well as connected complaint, mentioned above, deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present complaint as well as another connected complaint, mentioned above, stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

9]       The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

         The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

16.09.2024                                                                         

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

as