Date of Filing       : 09.01.2023

                                                                                     Date of Disposal  :  03.04.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT @ CHENGALPATTU

PRESENT: THIRU.   U.KASIPANDIAN, B.A., M.L.,    .….  PRESIDENT

                   THIRU.M.JAWAHAR, B.A. L.L.M.,           …..  MEMBER-I  

CC.No.8/2023

THIS MONDAY THE 3^rd DAY OF APRIL 2023

Dr.M.Kanaheswari,

No.2/641, River View Colony,

IAS IPS Colony, Yamuna Street,

Manapakkam, Chennai – 600 125,

Tamil Nadu.                                                                          ::          Complainant.     

//Vs.//

Reliance Retail Ltd.,

LG 39, Market City, Near GNG

Cricket Ground, Chennai – 600 042,

Tamil Nadu.                                                                          ::          Opposite party.                                                         

Counsel for the complainant                              :  Party In Person

Counsel for the opposite party                          :  Ex-Parte (dt.22.02.2023).

This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 20.03.2023, the complainant present in person, today did not appear,  the  opposite party was called absent and set Ex-parte on 22.02.2023 and having perused the documents and evidences of complainant, this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. U.KASIPANDIAN, PRESIDENT.

1.       This complaint is filed by the complainant under Sec. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the opposite party seeking direction, directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,408/- towards the cost of TV.; to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for causing mental injury and harassment and for the opportunity cost lost due to the loss of TV programmes; to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as penalty for their deficient service to the complainant.

2.         Brief averments  in the complaint is as follows:-

It is averred that the complainant had purchased a SONY 55 4K/UHD Smart LED TV 55 (Serial No: 8013435) from the opposite party on 27.01.2018 after paying a sum of RS.1,30,249/- which includes a rescue plan for offering extended warranty plans, repair of the product at free of cost for 1 year from 27.01.2018 to 27.01.2019, besides that a further rescue care plan Sl.No: 405187 (600518276) for a period of another 2 years and 2 months from 28.01.2019 to 27.03.2021 for a sum of Rs.20,159/- was also provided. On the next day (28.01.2018), the Sales Associate of the opposite party approached the complainant and persuaded to go for another rescue care plan Sl.No: 320141 (600518276) for next two years and two months from 28.03.2021 to 27.05.2023 at a purchase price of Rs.20,159/-. Accordingly, the cost of TV including the rescue care plan for 5 years, 4 months covering assured extended warranty, repairs and maintenance service comes to 1,50,408/-. It is further averred that during above valid service plans for the Sony TV, the picture in the TV display was found to be not clear on 09.04.2022 and masked by extensive horizontal and vertical lines. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint to the toll-free No 1800-8899-1044 of SONY. Consequently, a technician from SONY visited the complainant’s home on 12.04.2022, examined the TV and sent an estimate for Rs.43,206/- on 13.04.2022. The complainant was shocked and contacted the opposite party. The opposite party requested the complainant to forward the quote of SONY. Accordingly, the complainant forwarded quote of SONY through an email to the opposite party as advised by them. The customer support of the opposite party after receiving the estimate of SONY, sent an email advising the complainant to login to Rescue App http Jio-Reliance rescue, to create and track service on a click and allow them 24 working hours to get back to the complainant by giving a service call No.8050789788. Subsequently, the complainant received another mail from the customer support team of opposite party, requesting the complainant to elaborate the repair issue along with product details. Accordingly the complainant had sent an another email on 14.02.2022, elaborating the repairs along with the product details. It is further averred that there was no further communication from the opposite party till 19.04.2022. There was also no response from service call No: 8050789788 to ascertain the further progress. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to send another email on 19.04.2022 asking the opposite party to resolve the issue. In response to the said email, the opposite party on 22.04.2022 sent an email assuring to resolve the issue at the earliest. On 22.04.2022, the complainant reminded the estimate of SONY for repairing and also informing that the warranty with Reliance was also subsisting up to 27.05.2023. After few days, the opposite party representative Mr.Abudu Sayyed sent a reply informing that the opposite party has advised SONY Digital to go ahead with repair under rescue warranty plan. On the same day, the JM rescue app informed that the date of resolution of request for repair to the TV to be 03.05.2022. Followed by the said communication, the customer support of opposite party also sent a reply saying that the Service Manager has prioritized the repair and would arrange to address the issue at the earliest.

            It is further averred that to the shock of the complainant, the complainant received a message on 29.04.2022 from JD rescue, i.e the Opposite party that the complainant’s service request No: 8051090530 has been cancelled even though the complainant never cancelled the said request. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to escalate the issue to the Chief Executive Officer of Reliance Head Office on 02.05.2022, informing that the original date promised by JM rescue, i.e the Opposite party,  to resolve the issue was 03.05.2022 which was not adhered to by saying that spares were not available to carry out the repairs. On the same day, the CEO of the opposite party Mr. B.M.Bade sent a reply that he has more concern on complainant’s plight and promised to get within 48 hours and assigned a reference No:700789833 for further enquiry. Subsequently, the said Mr. B.M.Bade on 05.05.2022 informed that the required spare is unavailable to carry out the repair and had offered, instead to offer 30% of net purchase value of the product amounting to Rs.37,446/- under item 4 of terms and conditions of the rescue plan and sought  complainant’s consent to which the complainant was not ready. It is further averred the complainant on 06.05.2022 sent an email to the said Mr. B.M.Bade informing him that as the manufacturer of the product, SONY has the legal responsibility, had to make the spares available,  especially during the product’s expected lifespan. Such being the case as caviat venditor, Reliance has the duty to ensure that the required spares are stocked by the manufacturer during the lifespan of warranty already sold by Reliance for the product up to 27.05.2023. But, in the complainant’s case, there was failure on the part of Reliance, to perform the contract which has clearly calmed the complainant’s interest to make her TV functional under the rescue warranty. The opposite party had conveniently failed to deploy the ultimate solution available for an equitable relief. It is further averred that on 08.05.2022, the complainant received an email from Mr. B.M.Bade expressing sincere apology for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. But, even after 7 months, the issue has not been resolved. Such act of the opposite party not only amounts to deficiency in service, but also unfair trade practice and hence the present complaint.

3.         The opposite party  was called absent and set Ex-parte on 22.02.2023 and this Commission has decided to dispose of the complaint on merits in the absence of the opposite party;

4.         In order to prove the case, proof affidavit has been by the complainant as their evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 were marked.

5.         At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Commission are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?
4. To what other reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

6.         Point No.1 :-             The complainant has been residing within the territorial limits of this commission. Hence part of Cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this commission. The consideration according to the complainant is Rs.1,50,408/- which is well below the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission. The opposite party sent an email on 08.05.2022 expressing sincere apology for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and has also assigned their senior members of the team to assist the complainant. The complaint has been filed on 09.01.2023. Therefore, the complainant is a consumer, the complaint has been filed well within the time limit prescribed by the Act. Hence, complaint is maintainable.

7.         Point No.2 to 4:-                  Heard the complainant. Considered the affidavit and documents filed by the complainant. Ex.A1 dated 27.01.2018 is the purchase bill issued by the opposite party. Ex.A2 is the rescue plan dated 27.01.2018. Ex.A3 is the rescue plan for the period between 28.03.2021 and 27.05.2023. A reading of Ex.A2 and A3 corroborates that the rescue plan included an extended warranty, repair of the product at free of cost. Ex.A4 is the estimate issued by the authorized service centre of SONY TV. Ex.A5 dated 13.04.2022 corroborates that the estimation of manufacturer of product was forwarded to the opposite party. Through Ex.A6, the opposite party directed the complainant to login the rescue app. The opposite party vide EX.A7 asked the complainant to elaborate the issue along with the product details. In Ex.A8 dated 14.04.2022, the opposite party sent an email to the complainant that the opposite party will ask their team to bear the charges demanded by the SONY under the rescue warranty scheme. The complainant sent an email detailing the issues as well as the product. On 22.04.2022, the opposite party affirmed that they will resolve the issue vide Ex.A11, A12, A13. A reading of Ex.A14 reveals that the complainant informed the opposite party that she never cancelled her request No.8051090530. Ex.A14 is the email dated 02.05.2022 from the CEO of the opposite party assigning another complaint No.700789833. Ex.A15 is an email from the opposite party forwarded to the complainant stating that due to non-availability of required panel, the opposite party was ready to take back the TV for 35% of commercial value of net purchase value. Ex.A16 dated 07.05.2022 was sent by the complainant declining the offer of the opposite party of the opposite party to take back the TV for 35% commercial value of net purchase value.

8.         From the foregoing it is proved that the opposite party had offered a scheme under the name and style of “My rescue plan” under which the opposite party misrepresented the complainant that the repair of the product will be free of cost and also offered an extended warranty. The extended warranty is subsisting till 27.05.2023 as per Ex.A3. Unfortunately, the picture in the Television purchased by the complainant was suddenly found to be not clear on 09.04.2022 and masked by extensive horizontal and vertical lines. The complainant approached the opposite party to resolve the said issue. The opposite party instead of resolving the issue, offered to purchase the TV of the complainant for 35% of commercial value of net purchase value of the TV. The opposite party had issued an invoice which is marked as Ex.A1.

9.         This commission has sent the notice to the address mentioned in Ex.A1. But, the said notice was returned, as if the address is insufficient. Therefore, it is proved that the opposite party has not issued bills, cash memos, receipts for the goods sold and services rendered in such a manner a prescribed under rule 5 of the Consumer Protection (General Rules, 2020). The said rule 5 is extracted her below for ready reference:

Rule 5 manner of issuing invoice, bill or cash memo or receipt for goods sold and services rendered

1. Every invoice, bill, cash memo or receipt for goods sold or services rendered, issued by a seller shall have the following minimum particulars, namely:-

1. The name and address of the seller;
2. A consecutive serial number not exceeding 16 characters, in one or multiple series, containing letters or numerals or special characters (hyphen or dash, and slash, symbolized as “_” and “/” respectively) and any combination thereof, unique for a financial year;
3. The date of this issue;
4. The name of the consumer;
5. The description of goods or services;
6. The quantity, in case of goods;
7. The shipping address, where applicable;
8. The taxable value and discounts;
9. The rate of tax;
10. The signature of the seller or his authorized representative;
11. The customer care number or email ID where available and;
12.  The total price in single figure, along with the breakup price showing all the compulsory and voluntary charges such as delivery charges, postage and handling charges, conveyance charges and the applicable tax:

Provided that where such invoice, bill, cash memo or receipt is issued by a seller in electronic form, the signature of the seller is not required.

2. The serial number on the invoice, bill, cash memo or receipt to be issued by a seller shall not be altered, removed, replaced or erased under any circumstances.

Sub-section (47) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines the term “unfair trade practice”. For ready reference, the relevant portion of subsection 47 of section 2 of Consumer Protection Act is extracted here below:

Section 2 (47) “unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the same, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:-

1. Making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation including by means of electronic record, which:-

a)………………………………………………….

b)…………………………………………………

c)………………………………………………….

d)………………………………………………….

e)…………………………………………………...

f) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness or any goods or services;

g) gives to the public any warranty or guaranty of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product or of any goods that is not based on an adequate or proper test thereof:

 provided that where a defense is raised to the effect that such warranty or guaranty is based on adequate or proper test, the burden of proof of such defense shall lie on the person raising such defense;

h) makes to the public a representation in a form that purpose to be …………..

     A)   a warranty or guaranty of a product or of any goods or services; or

     B)   a promise to replace, maintain or repair an article or any part thereof or to repeat or continue a service until it has achieved a specified result,

            If such purported warranty or guaranty or promise is materially misleading or if there is no reasonable prospect that such warranty, guaranty or promise will be carried out;

2. ………………………………………………………………….
3. ………………………………………………………………….
4. ………………………………………………………………….
5. ………………………………………………………………….
6. …………………………………………………………………..
7. Not issuing bill or cash memo or receipt for the goods sold or services rendered in such manner as may be prescribed;

10.       According to section 2(47)(vii),  not issuing bill or cash memo or receipt for the goods sold or services rendered in such a manner as may be prescribed shall amount to unfair trade practice. In the present case, the Opposite party has issued a bill/cash memo/ receipt which is marked as Ex-A1. As per Ex A1, the address of the Opposite party is Reliance Retail Limited LG 39, Market City near GNG cricket ground, Chennai – 600 042, Tamil Nadu. But the notice sent by this commission to the said address, was sent with an endorsement “insufficient address”. The address in the cover sent by the commission and address in EX-A1 were compared and found that both address are one and the same. Therefore, it is proves that the Opposite party indulged in Unfair Trade Practice in accordance with Section 2(47)(vii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

11.       Further, in the present case, the opposite party had falsely represented that the services of the opposite party is of a particular standard, quality or grade by promising to replace, maintain or repair the television and all the parts thereof at free of cost. However, such purported warranty or guarantee or promise is materially misleading one, when such warranty, guarantee or promise is not carried out. In the instant case, the opposite party, after entering into a contract with the complainant, extending the warranty plans and also for repair of the product at free of cost for the period between 28.03.2021 and 27.05.2023 at a price/consideration of Rs.20,159/-. But the opposite party did not repair the TV nor replaced the same. On the other hand, offered to purchase the TV for the 30% of the net purchase value of the product which is unfair. Such act of the Opposite party squarely amounts to unfair Trade Practice as contemplated under section 2(47)(i)(f) and (h) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

12.       Further, in the present case, the opposite party has been running business at Phoenix Mall, Velachery, Chennai – 42 but the opposite party has issued bill or cash memo or receipt containing some other address i.e., But the notice sent by this commission to the opposite party returned un-served at the above address with an endorsement “insufficient address”.

13.       Above-said acts of the opposite party prove that the opposite party has been indulging in unfair trade practice for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of the provisions of its services, adopted unfair methods amounting to unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for. 

14.       In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed

1. To pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only)  towards cost of TV + extended warranty purchased along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization;
2. To pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only)  towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and for the opportunity cost lost due to the loss of TV Programmes; 
3. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)  towards cost of proceedings to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Failing which, the above said amounts (Rs.1,50,000/- + 10,000/- = 1,60,000/-) shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 3^th   day of April 2023.

   Sd/-                                                                                                               Sd/-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                PRESIDENT

List of document(s) filed by the complainant(s):-

List of documents filed by the opposite party(s):-

• Nil -

   Sd/-                                                                                                               Sd/-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                PRESIDENT