Haryana

Karnal

CC/320/2023

Anu Kaushik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhdev Sharma

22 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.320 of 2023

                                                        Date of instt.31.05.2023

                                                        Date of Decision: 22.05.2024

 

Anu Kaushik daughter of Shri Prem Kumar, resident of H.No.4, Shakti Puram, Airport Road, Gali No.2, Near Adarsh Public School, Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Reliance Retail Limited. Reliance Digital Retail Limited Property No.138, Municipal No.19/991, Dayal Singh Colony, Kunjpura Road, Karnal, through its authority person.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh……Member

          

 

 Argued by: Shri Sukhdev Sharma, counsel for complainant.

    Shri Abhay Sahu, counsel for OP

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

               

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that on 29.4.2023 the complainant has placed online order on Reliance Digital for purchasing Mobile Phone make One Plus Nord CE2 Lite 5G, and the same was delivered to the complainant through courier and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.18,999/-. While opening the parcel, the complainant did videography of the box and after opening, the complainant was surprised to see that the screen of the said mobile phone was completely damaged and phone was not of any use. Complainant immediately made a complaint on the customer care no.18008891055 and the person who attended the phone stated to share the photographs of mobile phone on the email I.D. of the OP which is 'reliancedigital@ril.com'. According, the complainant send mail and share the photographs as desired by the company. Complainant waited sufficient time but the OP has not responded properly and always put of the matter that the work is in progress for the replacement of the mobile phone but nothing was done by the OP. Despite repeated requests, nothing was done, in this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections stating therein that the OP is a company engaged among others, in providing trading/selling facility over the internet through its website. Complainant has failed to annex a single piece of substantial evidence to support his allegations against the OP. On merits, it has been pleaded that the product was delivered in damaged condition are completely false, fabricated and baseless thus denied outrightly. Complainant raised a return request on dated 03.05.2023, she was asked to share the relevant images of the damaged product alongwiht its outer packaging box, but what to speak of sending the images, the complainant was not even responding to the calls and messages of the OP.  There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill/tax invoice Ex.C1, copy of order number Ex.C2, copy of shipment details Ex.C3, copy of shipping address Ex.C4, copy of tracking report Ex.C5, copies of emails Ex.C6 to Ex.C8, copy of outgoing call details Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 04.12.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP has tendered into evidence affidavit Vinaya Kanoor authorized signatory of OP Ex.OPW1/A, and copy of cancellation and return policy Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 23.02.2024 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for the OP and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that the complainant has ordered a mobile phone through online mode from the OP. The OP delivered the mobile phone at the address of complainant and when the box of mobile phone was opened the complainant shocked to see that the display of the mobile phone was broken. Immediately, the complainant approached the customer care of the OP and on their advice, the complainant shared the photographs of the damaged mobile to them but despite repeated request, nether the product was replaced nor amount was refunded to the complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.  

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that an order was placed by the complainant for a mobile phone. After receiving the mobile phone, the complainant lodged a complaint with regard to the fact that he has received a defective product but despite repeated calls and messages, the complainant did not share the photographs of the mobile phone to them, hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the complainant purchased a mobile phone from the OP through online mode. It is also admitted that after receiving the mobile phone, the complainant lodged a complaint with the OP with regard to receiving of defective product. 

11.           The complainant has alleged that on receiving the product immediately she has lodged a complaint on the customer care of the OP and on their advised she has sent an e-mail sharing the photographs of the damaged product and on the other hand, the OP has alleged that despite repeated requests, the complainant did not share the photographs of the damaged product to the OP. The onus to prove her case was relied upon the complainant. In order to prove her case the complainant has placed on file the extract of e-mail Ex.C7 dated 16.05.2023 and Ex.C8 dated 03.05.2023, whereby she has shared the photographs of damaged mobile phone to the OP twice. The complainant has also placed on file outgoing calls details Ex.C9 wherefrom it has been proved that the complainant has approached the customer care of the OP many times.

12.           During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has shown the videography in his mobile phone, which was prepared at the time of opening of box of mobile in question. From the videography it has been crystal clear that the display of the mobile in question was already in broken when the box was opened by the complainant. Thus, the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

13.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.18,999/- as cost of the mobile in question to the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expense. The complainant is also directed to handover the mobile in question alongwith its accessories, if any, to the OP at the time of receiving the awarded amount. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:22.05.2024                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Suman Singh)

                     Member                          Member