Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/92/2018

Ms. Sachin Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Kaushik, Adv.

04 Sep 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.	:	92 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	24.04.2018
Date of Decision	:	04.09.2018

Ms.Sachin Sharma d/o Sh.Bhim Sain Sharma, R/o H.No.3018, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant

 

V e r s u s

 

1. Reliance Retail Limited, Elante Mall, Shop No.247, Second Floor, Industrial and Business Park, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its General Manager.
2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF PH-V, Gurugram, Haryana through its Managing Director. 

…. Respondents/Opposite parties No.1 and 2

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-      Sh.Ajay Kumar Sharma, (Advocate), husband of       the appellant/complainant.

                        Sh.Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for respondent no.1.

                        Sh.Tushar Arora, Advocate for respondent no.2.

 

JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant, for modification of an order dated 01.02.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), vide which, it allowed a consumer complaint bearing no.516 of 2017, against respondent no.1.

2.         As per facts on record, the appellant purchased a Samsung Smart LED TV, 48 inches, Model 2016, from respondent no.1. At the time of sale of the said TV, it was told by representative of opposite party no.1 that its cost is Rs.54,900/-, however, after granting discount, the appellant will get it on payment of Rs.48,464/-. She made payment of part amount, through her credit card and to pay the balance amount, the TV was got financed from Bajaj Finance. It was stated that the said TV was sent by respondent no.1, on 31.12.2016. However, it was not sent in a sealed box. On further investigation, it was noticed that the unit sold was not of 2016 model. Rather, it was manufactured in the year 2014. It was her grievance that old/repaired TV set has been sold to her. By alleging deficiency in providing service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents, the appellant filed consumer complaint before the Forum, seeking refund of amount paid, alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses. 
3.         Respondent no.1, in its written reply admitted the sale of product, in question, to the appellant. It was fairly admitted that the product was demo/display one and it was not sent in a sealed/ packed condition to the appellant. Before sale of the said TV, this fact was brought to the notice of the appellant. It was stated that, on account of above fact, heavy discount was granted to the appellant.  Pleading no deficiency in service on the part of respondent no.1, prayer was made to dismiss the consumer complaint.
4.         In the reply filed by respondent no.2, it was stated that the TV in question, had been brought to its service centre for repairs. However, on checking, it was found to be functioning properly. It was admitted that the TV in question was of 2014 Model.  It was pleaded that respondent no.2,  cannot be held responsible for any wrong or illegal act committed by respondent no.1. Pleading no deficiency in service on the part of respondent no.2, prayer was made to dismiss the consumer complaint.
5.         In the rejoinder filed, the appellant reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those, contained in written replies filed by the respondents.
6.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7.         On analyzing the pleadings of the contesting parties; documents placed on record and also the arguments addressed, the Forum allowed the complaint, by observing as under:-

“The evidence brought forward by Opposite Party No.2/Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. in the shape of Service Job Sheet/Service Request dated 29.2.2016 clinches the whole matter in issue.  It reveals that the LED TV in question was earlier sold to one Mohit of Ram Darbar, who submitted the said TV for repair pertaining to damage of display. This sole document undoubtedly proves that the complainant had not only been sold an old Model LED TV, but a second hand/repaired LED TV under the garb of so called discount, given on its purchase to the complainant.   The so called consent relied upon by Opposite Party NO.1 as Ann.D-1 disfavour the stand of Opposite Party NO.1 as this Consent and Acceptance Form has not signed by the complainant to accept a second hand LED TV.  The discount so given by Opposite Party NO.1 was given to befool the complainant for adjusting not only the old Model LED TV but a second hand LED TV as well.  Thus it clearly establish that the Opposite Party NO.1 has indulged into unfair trade practice and hence deserves to be saddled with penalty to compensate the complainant.”

 

8.         However, the Forum did not order refund of the amount paid to the appellant, rather, following relief was granted in her favour, vide the order impugned:-

“[a] To pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for unfair trade practice resorted to by Opposite Party NO.1;

 [b] To pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses”. 

Directions given above, were to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order impugned, failing which, it was further directed that respondent no.1 shall be liable to pay additional compensation amount of Rs.5000/-, over and above the relief granted to the appellant.

9.         It is grievance of the appellant that compensation amount awarded by the Forum is on the lower side. Whereas, to the contrary, at the time of arguments, it was intimated to this Commission by Counsel for respondent no.1 that liability imposed, as per judgment under challenge, already stood discharged. The awarded amount stood paid to the appellant. Above information clearly indicates that mistake/deficiency in rendering service, was virtually admitted by respondent no.1 and the findings given above have become final. Prayer of the appellant to refund the amount paid, might have been accepted by this Commission, however, when at the time of arguments, we came to know that the unit is now functioning properly, we are not going to accept such prayer. However, contention raised by Sh.Ajay Kumar Sharma, (Advocate), husband of the appellant/complainant, that compensation awarded by the Forum is on the lower side, appears to be correct. On account of mistake/deceit committed by respondent no.1, the appellant is suffering for the last more than a year. She had to appear before the Forum on number of dates and now before this Commission.
10.         For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly allowed. To meet the ends of justice, compensation awarded i.e. Rs.20,000/- is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. Let the enhanced/ differential amount of Rs.10,000/- be paid by respondent no.1 to the appellant, within a period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @8% p.a. from the date of filing this appeal, till realization. Remaining directions given in the order impugned, regarding payment of litigation expenses and also regarding dismissal of complaint against respondent no.2 shall remain intact.  
11.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
12.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

04.09.2018

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Rg.