Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/603/2016

Gurnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

J.S. Bagga

17 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/603/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	03/08/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	17/02/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Gurnam Singh S/o Sh. Ram Chand, R/o H.No. 408, F.F., Sector 46-A, Chandigarh.

 

……… Complainant.

Versus

 

[1]   Reliance Retail Limited, through its Authorized Person Elante Mall, Shop No. 247, Second Floor, Industrial and Business Park, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

 

[2]   Sony India Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director, Registered Office: - A-31, Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. S.S. PANESAR             PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. S.K. SARDANA             MEMBER

         

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Ex-parte

 

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

_­­

          Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint and emanating from the record are that, the Complainant purchased one Home Theatre of Sony Brand on 27.12.2015 for Rs.58,490/- from Opposite Party No.1, with a warranty of one year, vide invoice Annexure C-1. It has been alleged that the said Home Theatre did not work properly and satisfactorily, right from the day one, as it developed problem in its Woofers in February, 2016. Since the product was within warranty, the Authorized Service Centre replaced both the Woofers on 20.02.2016. However, when the same problem again developed, during the month of April, 2016 and May, 2016, the Authorized Service Centre replaced both the Woofers vide Job Cards Annexure C-4 (colly) and C-5 respectively. Eventually, the Complainant served a legal notice dated 02.06.2016 upon the Opposite Parties, inter alia, seeking refund of the invoice price of the product, but to no success. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 filed its reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that Opposite Party No.1 is engaged in retail sale of consumer durables manufactured by various manufacturers, including Sony India Pvt. Limited and sells the product in the same condition without opening the pack of the product, as it is received from the manufacturer and has no contribution in the manufacturing of the product in any of its stage, hence not liable for the alleged manufacturing defect in the product. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, answering Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.      The Complainant also filed replication to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.1 has been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
6.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.
7.      The Opposite Party No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted. In these set of circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. Furthermore, Opposite Party No.2 even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant, when approached by him by way of legal notice dated 02.06.2016. It is important to note that admittedly Opposite Party No.1 is only a retailer engaged in the business of selling consumer durables manufactured by various manufacturers including Opposite Party No.2 and thus neither has any role in the manufacturing of the products at any stage nor it is liable to provide after sale services to the customers, therefore, we inclined not to pass any orders qua Opposite Party No.1 and the Complaint against it is liable to be dismissed. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against it.

 

8.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.2, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.58,490/- being the invoice price of the Home Theatre to the Complainant;

 

[b]  Pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c] Pay Rs.8,000/- towards costs of litigation;

          The complaint against Opposite Party No.1 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

9.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.2; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, apart from costs of litigation mentioned in sub-para [c] above.

 

10.      The Complainant shall return the defective Home Theatre in question to the Opposite Party No.2 after the compliance of the order.

 

11.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17^th FEBRUARY,2017                                           

Sd/-

(S.S. PANESAR)

       PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(S.K. SARDANA)

       MEMBER

 “Dutt”