View 16963 Cases Against Reliance
View 1675 Cases Against Reliance Retail
Kunal Kumar filed a consumer case on 21 Oct 2021 against Reliance Retail Limited in the Ludhiana Consumer Court. The case no is CC/20/2 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Oct 2021.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 02 dated 01.01.2020. Date of decision:21.10.2021.
Kunal Kumar S/o. Sh. Sat Pal, 57, Friends Cly, Pakhowal Road, Vill. Daad, Ludhiana. ..…Complainant
Versus
Reliance Retail Limited, through its Manager/Prop/Partner, SCF 12 & 13, E Block Market, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana. …..Opposite party.
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT
SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : None.
For OP : Exparte.
ORDER
PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT
1. The case of the complainant, as set forth in the complaint, is that on 31.07.2019, the complainant purchased one Supermax shaving foam bottle of 400 grams vide bill No.#26701061528064 for an amount of Rs.199/-. However, the actual rate of the said item after deduction should have been Rs.99.50. In this manner, the OP charged Rs.99.50 extra from the complainant and did not refund the same despite request. It is further alleged that the cashier did not allow 50% discount printed on the bottle itself. Instead, the cashier told the complainant that the reliance retail was not giving 50% less on single bottle. The complainant sent a notice to the OP on 05.08.2019 for redressal of his grievance, but the same was not responded to after the lapse of so many months. In the end, it has been requested that the OP be penalized for unfair trade practice and be made to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
2. Upon notice, the OP did not appear despite service and as such, was proceeded against exparte.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case, the complainant has not been appearing from 24.07.2020 onwards. Under the circumstances, we are proceeding to decide the present complaint in terms of Section 38 (3) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
4. The complainant has attached a copy of the retail invoice CW-3 whereby the product Supermax shaving foam has been sold to the complainant for a sum of Rs.199/- whereas on the bottle itself, it is printed that the product was offered at 50% discount on MRP. The pictures of the bottle have also been placed on record as CW-1 and CW-2 wherein the MRP is mentioned as Rs.199/-. Therefore, as per the offer printed on the bottle itself, OP was supposed to charge Rs.99.50 after deducting 50% discount. Since the complainant was charged Rs.199/-, this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances, it would be just and proper if the OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.99.50 along with composite compensation of Rs.1,000/-.
5. As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed exparte in terms that the OP will refund Rs.99.50 with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of actual payment. The OP shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied/sent to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
6. Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.
(Jaswinder Singh) (K.K. Kareer)
Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:21.10.2021.
Gobind Ram.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.