Haryana

Karnal

CC/444/2024

Uttkarsh Arya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Neeraj Kumar Sharma

26 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.444 of 2024

                                                          Date of instt.12.09.2024

                                                          Date of Decision: 26.09.2024

 

Uttkarsh Arya son of Shri Ajay Arya, resident of H.No.513-G, Shaktipuram, Near Government Tubewell, Karnal.

 

          ...…Complainant.

                                        Versus

1. Reliance Retail Limited, Reliance Digital, Property No.138, Municipal No.19/991, Dyal Singh Colony, Kunjpura Road, Karnal.
2. RRL CDIT Farrukhnagar DC, Reliance Retail Limited, Block-I, Embassy Industrial Park, Farrukhnagar 122506, Haryana.
3. LG Electronics India Private Limited, Plot No.51, Surajpur, Kasna Road, Near Udhyog Vihar, Greater Noida 201306.
4. LG Service Centre, Plot No.7, Nirmal Colony, Behind Sachdeva Hospital, Sector-12, Karnal.                                                                                                ....Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh………President. 

                Mrs.Neeru Agarwal……..Member

                Mrs. Sarvjeet Kaur…………Member

                               

Present:   None for the complainant.

 

                                                 

               Today the case is fixed consideration on the point of admissibility. None has put into appearance on behalf of the complainant. The position was remained the same on the adjourned date. Case called several times since morning but none has put into appearance on behalf of the complainant. It is already 03:40 PM. No further wait is justified.

2.             As per Section 36 (2) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, on receipt of complaint, the District Commission shall decide the admissibility of complaint within twenty one days.

Section 36 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is reproduced as under:-

36. (1) Every proceeding before the District Commission shall be conducted by the President of that Commission and atleast one member thereof, sitting together:

Provided that where a member, for any reason, is unable to conduct a proceeding till it is completed, the President and the other member shall continue the proceeding from the stage at which it was last heard by the previous member.

(2) On receipt of a complaint made under section 35, the District Commission may, by order, admit the complaint for being proceeded with or reject the same:

Provided that a complaint shall not be rejected under this section unless an opportunity of being heard has been given to the complainant:

Provided further that the admissibility of the complaint shall ordinarily be decided within twenty-one days from the date on which the complaint was filed.

(3) Where the District Commission does not decide the issue of admissibility of the complaint within the period so specified, it shall be deemed to have been admitted.

3.             The present complaint has been filed on 12.09.2024 and the same was presented before the bench on 16.09.2024. On 16.09.2024, none has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. However, on that day, in the interest of justice, the complaint was adjourned to 26.09.2024 for consideration on the point of admissibility but today none has put in appearance on behalf of complainant. Fifteen days have already been passed from the date of filing of complaint and admissibility of complaint is to be decided within twenty one days. The prescribed period for deciding the admissibility of complaint is going to be expired. Thus, there is no justification to adjourn the case further.

4.             From the perusal of the complaint and documents attached with the file, no where it reveals that the refrigerator is having any defect. It seems that the complainant is not interested to pursue with the present complaint. Adjournining the case further for the same purpose would waste the precious time of this Commission.

5.             Hence, in view the above facts the present complaint is hereby dismissed. However, complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action, if so desired. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Dated: 26.09.2024.          

              President, 

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

  (Neeru Agarwal)              (Saravjeet Kaur) 

Member                           Member