Haryana

Panchkula

CC/34/2021

MANI KANT. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE RETAIL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

KAUSHAL KALYAN

17 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	34 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	21.01.2021
Date of Decision	:	17.08.2022

 

 

Manikant S/o Sh.Dayanand Prasad, R/o H.No.110, Near Shiv Mandir, Kalka, District Panchkula, Haryana.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Reliance Retail Ltd. Building No.4, Reliance House, R.K.Four       Square, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana.

2.     Mr. Mohit Mohinder(Retailer/Sales Partner) M/s Reliance Retail   Ltd. Reliance dx Shop No.569, Lower Bazar, Near PNB Bank,    opposite Bata Showroom, Kalka, District Panchkula, Haryana.                                                                                                                                                                                                            ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh.Kaushal Kalyan, Advocate for the complainant.

                        OP No.1 already ex-parte vide order dated 16.8.2021.

                        OP No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 30.3.2021.

                       

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Smart TV 32H32825 online form OPs vide relationship ID no.8091272933, vide card no.489377xxxxxx3288 chip,  payment reference no.658610919502533, on 07.10.2019 amounting  to  Rs.12,240/-. It is stated that the said smart TV was delivered by the OPs on 15.10.2019 while promised date of the delivery of the said product was 14.10.2019. Thereafter, the complainant was kept on waiting for installation of Smart TV by OPs despite numbers of Phone calls but no satisfactory answer was received from the OPs. Since 16.10.2019 nobody had reached at complainant’s house and then OPs given time of 17.10.2019 by messaging the complainant. The complainant called to customer care and discussed with Sh.Tejinder Singh Sidhu(HO Mumbai) for installation the said smart TV. On 18.10.2019, a technician came to the residence of the complainant and installed the said Smart T.V. but the installation of the said Smart TV was not proper as the TV was hanging freely and the fastners of the wall mount bracket were not properly inserted into the wall. After the installation of the said Smart TV, the technician tried to switch on the TV but could not and upon this he had made an excuse of problem regarding the SET up Box. After that the OP No.2 promised to send another technician but no technician was ever sent by the OP No.2. On 19.10.2019, due to the said improper installation, the said Smart TV fell on the ground and damaged completely. The TV became useless due to the improper installation by the technician of the OPs. Thereafter, the complainant brought this information in the knowledge of the OPs and asked to give a compensation in the shape of new Smart TV of same model but no heed was paid to the request of the complainant. The complainant has served a legal notice upon the OPs on 03.12.2019 and 25.02.2019 but no response has been received by the Ops.  Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financially; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notice was issued to the OP No.1 through registered post, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OP No.1; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP No.1, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 16.08.2021.

                Notice was issued to the OP No.2 through registered post, which was received back with the report ‘refusal’. The refusal by the OP No.2 to receive the notice amounts to service upon him; hence due to non appearance of OP No.2, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 30.03.2021.    

3.             To prove the case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

                During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has prayed for assigning a proper mark to the following documents as per table given below:-

Sr.No.	Particulars/Details of the documents	Mark	Remarks
1	Delivery note	A	Already appended with complaint
2	Receipt dated 08.10.2019	B	Already appended with complaint
3	Message conveyed to the complainant about the delivery	C	Already appended with complaint
4	Email dated 19.10.2019 sent by Sh.Tejinder Singh	D	Already appended with complaint
5	Request for replacement	E	Already appended with complaint
6	Email conversation qua the physical damage to the T.V.	F	Already appended with complaint
7	Email dated 03.12.2019	G	Already appended with complaint

 

                The learned counsel has prayed that the aforementioned documents were already available on the file as the same were appended with the complaint at the time of its filing. It is contended that the said documents could not be tendered in evidence due to inadvertence. Heard, in the interest of justice, the Mark ‘A’ to ‘G’ are assigned to the above mentioned documents so as to decide the controversy in a proper and fair manner.  

4.             We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file, minutely and carefully.

5.             Evidently, a smart T.V. alongwith its wall mount as mentioned in delivery note as Mark ‘A’ in lieu of Rs.11,990/- was to be delivered through Fast Express Cargo by OPs to the complainant at his address. The receipt dated 08.10.2019 pertaining to said TV by Fast Express Cargo alongwith value of the T.V. amounting to Rs.11,990/- is also evident  from Mark ‘B’. Allegedly the said T.V. was delivered at the address of the complainant on 15.10.2019 and installed on 18.10.2019. 6.             The first grievance as alleged by the complainant is that he was wrongly mis-informed that the said T.V. has been delivered to him on 14.10.2019. The next grievance of the complainant is with regard to the delayed installation of the said TV and the last, which most important, is about the improper installation of the said TV by the incapable and inexperienced technical person of the OP leading to the falling down of the TV on the ground causing damaged to it. During arguments, the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint, has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by directing the Ops to refund the sum of Rs.12,240/- alongwith compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

7.                The OPs No.1 & 2 have preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite service of notice and accordingly, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 16.8.2021 & 30.03.2021 respectively and thus, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

8.             As mentioned above, there is no doubt with regard to the making of the payment of sum of Rs.11,990/- by the complainant to the OPs in lieu of price of the said T.V. alongwith its wall mount vide tax invoice/delivery note Mark ‘A’. Further, the message conveyed to the complainant about the delivery of the said TV on 14.10.2019 vide Mark ‘C’ establishes that the complainant was given wrong information, causing confusion in his mind, as evidently T.V. was delivered to him on 15.10.2019 and not on 14.10.2019. Further, email conversation between the complainant and OPs make it evident that a technical person, was deputed by OPs for installing the TV on 18.10.2019 whereas the same was delivered at the address of the complainant on 15.10.2019; thus, there was delay of 3 days in the installation of T.V. Further, the email Mark ‘D’ sent by Sh.Tejinder Singh Sidhu on behalf of OP No.1 on 19.10.2019 reveals that the said TV got damaged necessitating the repairs. Further, as per email dated 23.10.2019 sent by the complainant to OPs, it is found that the said TV fell down on the ground due to its improper installation and hence, the request for replacement was made vide email Mark ‘E’. Though, there is no version of the OPs controverting and rebutting the contentions of the complainant, but there is email conversation, which is available on record as Mark ‘F’ wherein the OPs have attributed the fault to the complainant qua the physical damage to the T.V. The OP No.1 had reiterated the same version vide email vide Mark ‘G’. As there is no rebuttal on the part of the OPs to the contentions of the complainant regarding improper installation of the TV which led to its damages by falling on the ground, we have no option except to conclude that the TV fell on the ground on account of its improper installation by the technical person of the OPs. The OPs were at liberty to disprove the contention of the complainant by leading credible, adequate and cogent evidence in the shape of affidavit of concerned technical person who were deputed to install the TV in question but the OPs have preferred to withhold the testimony of the same for the reasons but known to them.

9.             In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that OPs No.1 & 2 has been deficient while rendering services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

10.            As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 & 2:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.11,990/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. 
2. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation charges.

11.            The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs No.1 & 2 failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced on: 17.08.2022

 

 

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini            Satpal

                Member                     Member                       President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                            Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini

                                               Member