Date of filing: 15.09.2020 Date of disposal: 02.08.2022
Complainant: Mr. Suman Mukherjee, residing at Bhavani Lodge, Narandighi, near Canal Par, P.O. & P.S.-Burdwan, Dist.
Purba Bardhaman, Pin 713101, W.B.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Parties: 1. The Branch Manager, Reliance Retail Ltd., Howrah, Kolkata-711313, W.B.
2. The General Manager, Reliance Retail Ltd. Reliance House, Kolkata-711313, W.B.
3. The Chairman, Reliance Retail Ltd. Court House, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400002.
Present : Mohammad Muizzuddeen -Hon’ble President.
: Mrs. Lipika Ghosh - Hon’ble Member.
: Mr. Atanu Kr. Dutta - Hon’ble Member.
F I N A L O R D E R
The complainant Mr. Suman Mukherjee had filed the complaint u/S 35 of the C. P. Act, 2019 on 15.09.2020.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he ordered on line a Reconnect 81.28cm ( 32 inch) HD Ready Smart LED TV bearing Model No.32H3282S from the O.P. No.1 on 28.06.2020 at the cost of Rs. 8990/- vide Order No.RDF0340793 and installation charge was Rs.250/-. Accordingly he had to pay total amount of Rs.9240/- including CGST and SGST charges. The expected date of delivery was on 02.07.2020. After completion of formalities of payment through net banking, the O.P. No.1 issued tax invoice on 28.06.2020. On 02.07.2020 one article packed was delivered to the address of the complainant. He examined the article and discovered that O.P. No.1 delivered another 32inch HD TV bearing Model No.32H3290 which was not ordered by the complainant. One Mr. Himangsu Mondal ordered the said T.V. and the said article was wrongly delivered to the complainant. Immediately the complainant intimated the said fact to the O.Ps through e-mail on 02.07.2020 and requested them to look into the matter and solve the issue as soon as possible but not a single response came from them. After getting any response from them against the mail dated 02.07.2020 he again sent a mail dated 06.07.2020 narrating the said fact with a request to look after the matter. Keeping silence on the part of the O.Ps clearly indicates the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. Again on 23.07.2020, complainant sent a mail and requested the O.Ps to take back the wrong product and refund of Rs.9240/- as paid by the complainant or to deliver the actual product ordered by him within 7 days from the date of the mail failing which the complainant should be compelled to take legal action. Therefore after receiving the mail dated 23.07.2020, the O.Ps sent a reply through mail dated 23.07.2020 giving thanks to the complainant for waiting for them and O.Ps also requested the complainant to allow them 10 working hours to get back the articles from the complainant but both the O.Ps failed to keep their commitment. Under the above facts and circumstances, the complainant has filed this case praying for passing order to direct the O.Ps to refund the amount of Rs.9240/- towards the cost of LED TV or to deliver the Reconnect 81.28cm (32 inch) LED Ready Smart LED TV bearing Model No.32H3282S as ordered by the complainant and to take return the other 32inch HD TV bearing Model No.32H3290 as ordered by Mr. Himangsu Mondal from the custody of the complainant. He also prayed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) due to suffering from mental pain, agony, harassment and negligence on the part of the O.Ps and prayed for litigations cost of Rs.25,000/-(Twenty Five Thousand).
The O.Ps have contested the case by filing written version containing all the material allegations contending, inter alia, that the complainant has no cause of action for the suit and that the case is not maintainable in its present form and that the case is barred by the provision of law of limitation and that the case is full of suppression, misrepresentation of material facts and that the complainant did not come to the Ld. Commission with clean hands and that the case is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of the parties and that the case should be dismissed.
The specific case of the O.Ps is that the O.P. No.1 is a manufacturer, authorized dealer and service center of the Reliance Digital Ltd. and he was/is all along very much diligent to provide the services to the high extend of high satisfaction to their large number of customers. He also admitted that the complainant ordered the T.V. set as described in his complaint. on 02.07.2020 one article with packed was delivered to the address of the complainant and by mistake the O.P. No.1 delivered another 32inch HD TV bearing Model No.32H3290 which was not order by the complainant and the same was ordered by one Mr. Himangsu Mondal and the said article wrongly delivered to the complainant. But there is no deliberate laches and negligence on the part of the O.P. No.1 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the present contesting O.P. No.1 as duly performed the part of duties. It is also submitted that there is no service provider and consumer relationship in between the petitioner and the O.P. No.1 exists.
The instant complaint under objection is speculative, harassing, motivated, concocted, false, fabricated, oppressive, frivolous, scandalous, after thought, baseless, vexatious, imaginary, prolix and unnecessary with ulterior motive and wrongful gain. Upon this background, the O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with Reasons
In order to prove the case, the complaint has filed Xerox copies of document and evidence-on-affidavit. No questionnaire has been filed against the evidence of the complainant. The O.Ps also filed the evidence-on-affidavit in order to disapprove the case of the complainant but in this event also no questionnaire has filed against the evidence of the O.Ps. The O.Ps have filed written notes of argument but the complainant did not file the written notes of argument.
On perusal of the evidence of the complainant, it is found that he has corroborated the complaint case by his evidence but the O.Ps did not cross-examined him by putting questionnaires. The O.Ps also more or less corroborated the W/V by his evidence-on-affidavit and the complainant also did not cross-examined him by putting questionnaires. From this type of nature of the evidence adduced by both sides, it is clear that both the sides are not willing to cross examine both of them but in the evidence-on-affidavit or in the W/V, the O.Ps admitted the fact that the complainant purchased the Reconnect 81.28cm (32 inch) HD Ready Smart LED TV bearing Model No.32H3282S from the O.P. No.1 on 28.06.2020. after paying total cost of Rs.9240/- through on line Order No. RDF0340793 and the said amount was including CGST and SGST charge and charge of installation service. But after completion of formalities of payment through net banking, the O.P. No.1 issued tax invoice in favour of the complainant on 28.06.2020 and on 02.07.2020 one article with packed was delivered to the address of the complainant and by mistake the O.P. No.1 delivered another 32inch HD TV bearing Model No.32H3290 and the said article was wrongly delivered to the complainant. Therefore it is clear the fact of the purchasing and delivering the TV set as ordered by the complainant was separate from the TV Set delivered to him by the O.P. No.1 which was not ordered by the complainant and ordered by one Mr. Himangsu Mondal, the documents submitted by the complainant supported it. Moreover the complaint is speculative and projected by the O.P. and the other so many words in the W/V and written notes of argument has not been substantiated by any material or ingredients in this case. On the other hand, after receiving the information and committing to do the needful either to replace the TV by the actual TV ordered by the complainant or to return the amount paid by the complainant, Ops did not take action so many dates waited by the complainant. This is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Even after fully knowing the matter, the O.Ps did not take any action to deliver the actual ordered T.V. Set of the complainant and to take back other TV Set as ordered by one Mr. Himangsu Mondal has also been deprived to get his TV set and the complainant also did not get his actual ordered TV set. In view of the conduct and acts of the O.Ps, which tantamount to also negligent.
Under the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the O.Ps committed deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice in this case.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that this case be and the same is allowed on cotest against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are directed to refund jointly or severally the amount of Rs.9240/- towards the cost of LED TV along with interest @10% per annum till realization or to deliver the Reconnect 81.28cm (32 inch) HD Ready Smart LED TV bearing Model No.32H3282S ordered by the complainant on 28.06.2020 and to take return the other 32inch HD TV bearing Model No.32H3290 as ordered by Mr. Himangsu Mondal in packed condition from the custody of the complainant. The O.Ps are also directed to pay jointly or severally the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-(Fifty Thousand) only for the suffering of mental pain, agony and harassment by the complainant and for negligence on the part of the O.Ps along with a litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-(Fifteen Thousand) only to the complainant by A/c payee cheque within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount shall carry further interest @10% per annum till realization.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties on free of cost.
Dictated & Corrected by me:
President
DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman
President
DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman
Member
DCDRC,Purba Bardhaman
