Versus
- M/s. Reliance Retail Limited, Reliance Dx Mini SCF 1 & 2, Shastri Nagar Market, Nr. Ishmeet Chownk, Ludhiana-141001.
- Reliance Retail Ltd., 3rd Floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400002, Maharashtra, India,
-
- TCL Company, S2, No.1 Govindasamy Street, Palavanthangal Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600114.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Nitin Arora, Advocate.
For OP1 and OP2 : Sh. Nitin Kapila, Advocate.
For OP3 : Exparte.
ORDER
PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
1. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant approached OP1 for purchase of TCL LED and on the assurance of OP1 for providing good services and good quality product, the complainant purchased TCL LED 55R500 vide invoice no.000301 dated 13.08.2019 for Rs.38,979.91. The complainant booked the order by paying Rs.18,000/- and Rs.20,797.91 and the said item was delivered on 17.08.2019. The complainant stated that OP3 has been impleaded being the manufacturer of the product. The product was delivered on time and same was installed with the assistance and technician of the OPs and the complainant started using the same. On 24.02.2020, the complainant experienced problem with the LED and he lodged complaint to TCL toll free number vide complaint No.IN02202004952301. They advised to change the panel as the panel was defective. The complainant repeatedly lodged complaint from February to October, but OP3 harassed him by lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. Then in October 2020, the complainant personally approached and requested OP1 to sort the issue as the product was under warranty but the store at Mahar Road was dehired by Reliance Company i.e. OP2. The complainant had to approach superior authority and again lodged complaint No.IN102020036727-01 on toll free number on 14.10.2020. The OPs assured the complainant to resolve his problem but to no effect. Then the complainant lodged complaint to escalate authority who through email conversation assured him to replace the product with other product of equivalent model. According to the complainant, he was harassed by the OPs for about one and half year. However, the OPs replaced the product but the same was also not working. Again raised complaint with the OP to resolve his grievance but he again faced harassment as the OPs did not hear his grievance which amounts to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs. The complainant served a legal notice dated 14.06.2022 upon the OPs but no reply was received. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to pay the invoice amount of the LED along with interest @12% per annum along with damages of Rs.55,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.21,000/-.
2. Notice was sent to OP3 through registered post on 17.09.2022 but the same was not received back either served or unserved even after elapse of period of 30 days. As such, OP3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.11.2022.
3. Upon notice, OP1 and OP2 appeared and filed written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of its maintainability; the complaint is an abuse of process of this Commission; the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands; suppression of material facts etc. OP1 and OP2 stated that the complainant purchased TCL LED 55 inch, model 55R500 from them and along with the same, there was an offer on the product as per which, one reconnect 6002 Woofer amounting to Rs.9900/- and one reconnect LED 32 inch amounting to Rs.8990/- was also included in the offer and a sum of Rs.38,979.91 was charged from the complainant. The products were delivered on time and were installed to the satisfaction of the complainant. OP1 and OP2 further stated that at the time of sale of the said products, it was explained to the complainant that the products are of TCL company & Reconnect company and warrantee of the product and after sale services are provided by the manufactures directly and their responsibility is limited regarding the sale of the products only. When the complainant approached them alleging defect in the TCL LED, he was advised to approach OP3 as they are manufactures of the same and accordingly, the product was replaced by OP3. Ever after replacement of the same, the complainant approached OP1 and OP2 and asked for refund of the amount and after putting the matter with OP3 and after consideration, OP1 and OP2 agreed to refund the amount of TCL LED 55 inch. The complainant was given offer to return the TCL LED 55 inch along with one reconnect 6002 Woofer amounting to Rs.9900/- and one reconnect LED 32 inch amounting to Rs.8990/- which were given in offer to the complainant and to receive the refund of full amount of Rs.38,979/- or in alternative he was also offered to receive Rs.29,000/- towards full and final settlement if he does not want to return the freebee products. However, the complainant kept asking for full refund of bill without returning freebee products and the complainant has concealed this fact.
On merits, OP1 and OP2 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. OP1 and OP2 have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of duplicate copy of invoice, Ex. C2 is the copy of Email dated 15.02.2021, Ex. C3 is the copy of legal notice dated 10.06.2022, Ex. C4 to ex. C8 are the copies of postal receipts, Ex. C9 is the copy of certificate Under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act of the complainant and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, counsel for OP1 and OP2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Mahesh Yadav, authorized representative of OP1 store along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of authority letter, Ex. R2 is the copy of duplicate copy of invoice and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant as well as OP1 and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statements along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.
7. Undisputably, the complainant purchased the TCL LED 55R500 vide invoice Ex.C1= Ex. R2 for Rs.39,990/- including one Reconnect 6002 Woofer of Rs.9990/- as well as Reconnect 32H3281 LED 32 inch for Rs.8990/-. It has been claimed that the TCL LED in question went out of order on 24.02.2020 and a complaint was lodged to the TCL tool free number who advised to change the defective panel of the product but the OPs did not do the needful despite lapse of 1½ year. Even his personal visits to shop of OP1 failed to yield desired results. The product was within warranty period. OP1 and OP2 in their written statement have taken a stand that the defective product i.e. TCL LED was replaced by manufacturer OP3 but even then the complainant requested for refund of the product and as such, they offered the complainant return the TCL LED 55 inch along with one reconnect 6002 Woofer amounting to Ts.9900/- and one reconnect ED 32 inch amounting to Rs./8990/- and to receive the refund of full amount of Rs.38,979/- or in alternative to receive Rs.29,000/- towards full and final settlement but the complainant remained adamant for full refund of bill amount without returning freebies.
8. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 10.06.2022 Ex. C3 to the OPs calling upon them to refund the paid amount back but failed to evoke any reply from the OPs. The OPs have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant despite the fact that the defective product was within warranty period. In the prayer clause of the present complaint, the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OP to the invoice amount of the said LED product along with interest. As such, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and appropriate if the complainant is directed to hand over the TCL LED 55 Inch to the OPs within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the OPs shall jointly and severally refund the depreciated price amounting to Rs.30,000/- the TCL LED 55 inch to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the product from the complainant. The OPs are further burdened with costs of Rs.5000/-.
9. As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainant to hand over the TCL LED 55 Inch to the OPs within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the OPs shall jointly and severally refund the depreciated price amounting to Rs.30,000/- of the TCL LED 55 inch to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the product from the complainant. The OPs shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Liability of OPs is held joint and several. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.
10. Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.
(Monika Bhagat) (Sanjeev Batra)
Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:07.08.2024.
Gobind Ram.
