DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 173 of 10-07-2019

Decided on : 30-09-2021

Neeru Bala aged 33 years, R/o MCB-Z-5, St. No. 1/5, Baba Farid Nagar, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. Reliance Retail Limited, Registered Office, 3^rd Floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai 400 002.

2. Reliance Digital, First Floor, Reliance Mart, under Hadbast No. 7, Patti Mehna, Barnala Road, Bathinda 151 001 (Punjab)

3. Sony India, Branch Office, A-18 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044.

   .......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President.

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member.

Present

For the complainant : Sh. Vikas Kumar, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Sh. Varun Gupta, Advocate, for OPs No. 1 & 2.

Sh.Gurpreet Singh, Advocate, for OP No. 3.

ORDER

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

1. The complainant Neeru Bala (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Reliance Retail Limited and others, (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No. 1 registered company for selling electronic products; opposite party No. 2 is retail store and seller and opposite party No. 3 is the manufacturer of the product. On 29-5-2019, complainant visited the store of opposite party No. 2 and purchased Sony Home Theater model name HT-RT3, manufactured by opposite party No. 3. The complainant paid the consideration amount of Rs. 17,450/- by her debit card at the store of opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant to deliver the product at her residence on next day.

3. It is alleged that when opposite party No. 2 delivered the product at her residence, while unboxing the same, she found that opposite parties delivered damaged/defective manufactured product which looks used product. The bars of the home theater were scratched. When the product put on electric plug, it was over-heating as well as non-functional. On the same day, complainant raised the matter before Store Manager and sent message through e-mail to customercare for replacement of the product. The company registered the complaint vide No. 8028719277, but no action was taken on that complaint. The opposite parties in connivance with each other sold inferior quality product to public at large.

4. It is alleged that opposite parties postponing the matter without any reason. The complainant got served legal notice upon the opposite parties in this reard, but to no effect. The complainant has suffered damages on account of mental agony and finanial loss which was sustained due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

5. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund the full cost of the product i.e. Rs. 17,450/- or replace the defective product with the new one and to pay compensation of Rs. 60,000/- alongwith cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

6. Upon notice, the opposite parties put an appearance through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply.

7. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in their joint written reply raised legal objections that opposite party No. 1 is a store run by opposite party No. 1 and that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this Commission. The complainant has suppressed material facts from this Commission. That the complainant has failed to dislose any legal and valid cause of action against the opposite parties. That the complainant does not qualify the ingredients of a valid complaint because there is not a single allegation which leads the opposite party to either deficiency of service or that of any unfair trade practice. That the complainant has created false story; complainant has no cause of action and that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved. The parties have to lead evidence by examining witness and the procedure under the 'Act' is summary in nature. That neither there is deficiency in service nor opposite parties indulged in unfair trade practice. That the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious.

8. On merits, it is stated that opposite parties never allured the complainant. The complainant herself approached to purchase the said product. The opposite parties informed about the complete feature of the product as per literature supplied by opposite party No. 2. A brand new piece was sold and supplied to complainant as received from manufacturer in its original multilayered pack. The opposite party is mere retailer of the product. If there is any fault of what so nature only on the part of the manufacturer not of the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 1 received e-mail from the complainant and then forwarded the same to opposite party No. 3 for redressal of the grievance of the complaint. The opposite parties denied all other averments of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9. The opposite party No. 3 in its separate written reply has made preliminary submissions that as per records of the Company, the complainant purchased one Sony Home Theatre having Model HT-RT3 on 29-5-2019 for Rs. 17,450/- from opposite party No. 1 after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions, applications alongwith detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of the said Home Theatre. The opposite party No. 3 provides a limited warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claims failling outside the scope of warranty. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complaint is filed against opposite parties No. 1 & 2 . There is no allegation aginst opposite party No. 3. The complainant filed this complaint primarily for delivering damaged product by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Opposite party No. 3 cannot be held liable. The burden of proof is on the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 as to what went wrong with product and why the product was delivered in scratchy/damaged conditions to the complainant. The opposite party No. 3 is not answerable and liable for the conditions in which the Home Theatre was delivered to the complainant.

10. It is pleaded that after purchasing the said Home Theatre, the complainant for the very first time approached the service centre on 8-6-2019 raising an issue with the product. The complainant approached the service centre with the Home Theatre in a damaged/scratchy condition and the said Home Theatre was delivered by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. When complainant approached the service centre of opposite party No. 3, upon inspection of the product, it was observed that the condition of same was in damaged/scratchy condition. After delivery of product, no installation or service request was made to opposite party No. 3. This clearly shows that the burden of proving the condition of the product straightway falls on opposite parties No. 1 & 2 on one hand and the complainant on the other hand. Moreover, legal notice sent by the complainant was against opposite parties No. 1 & 2.

11. Further preliminary objections are that no meterial evidence has been placed on record to prove that Home Teatre in question was having some inherent/manufacturing defect. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 3 and that no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant.

12. On merits, the opposite party No. 3 has controverted all the material averments of the complainant and reiterated its stand as taken in the preliminary objections and detailed above. In the end, opposite party No. 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

13. In support of his version, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 8-7-2019 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of terms and conditions (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-4), photocopy of e-mail (Ex. C-5), photocopy of acknowledgement (Ex. C-6) and photographs (Ex. C-8 to Ex. C-10).

14. To rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have tendered into evidence affidavit dated 19-11-2019 of Durgesh Kumar Dixit (Ex. OP-1/1).

15. The opposite party No. 3 has tendered into evidence photocopy of resolution (Ex. OP-3/1), photocopy of warranty (Ex. OP-3/2), photocopy of product information (Ex. OP-3/3), photocoies of photographs (Ex. OP-3/4 to Ex. OP-3/8), affidavit dated 17-8-2019 of Veena Bose (Ex. OP-3/9).

16. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.

17. The submission of learned counsel for the complainant is that after delivery of Home Theatre by opposite party No. 2, when it was unpacked, it was found in damaged/scratchy condition. The complainant immediately reported the matter to opposite party No. 2. The complainant also sent e-mails to the opposite parties as is evident from Ex. C-6 & Ex. C-7, but the opposite parties neither made refund of the price nor replaced the damaged Home Theater with new one. The learned counsel for complainant further submitted that opposite parties very well know rather admitted that Home Theater delivered to complainant was in damaged/scratchy condition and product is under one year warranty but opposite parties are trying to shift liability on each other's shoulder due to which complainant is suffering.

18. The submission of learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that opposite party No. 2 sold and sent the brand new piece as received from manufacturer (opposite party No. 3) in its original multilayered pack. The opposite party No. 2 is mere retailer of the product and if there is any fault, that is on the part of opposite party No. 3.

19. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 submitted that admittedly complainant purchased the product in question from opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 3 provides a limited warranty of one year on its product from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of warranty. No allegation has been leveled/raised by complainant against opposite party No. 3. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are liable to explain why the product was delivered in scratchy/damaged condition to complainant.

20. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

21. These are undisputed facts that complainant purchased one Sony Home Theatre having Model HT-RT3 on 29-05-2019 for Rs. 17,450/- from opposite party No. 1 vide invoice Ex. C-5. The product was delivered to complainant on 30-5-2019. The opposite parties have admitted in their versions that product in question has been received by complainant in scratchy/damaged condition and complainant approached opposite party No. 2 with the product and further approached Service Centre of opposite party No. 3. It is also admitted by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that complainant sent e-mail raising the said issue and his e-mail was forwarded to opposite party No. 3. The opposite parties have also admitted the fact regarding one year warranty on the product from the date of its original purchase.

22. Admittedly, complainant purchased the product in question on 29-5-2019 by spending an amount of Rs. 17450/-. Now even after a lapse of period of more than two years he is deprived of use of the product. In the case in hand, of course the manufacturer of Home Theater is opposite party No. 3, but complainant has not purchased the product directly from opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 2 has sold the product to complainant and accordingly, he approached opposite party No. 2 when after unboxing the product, he found it in a scratchy/damaged condition. The complainant also approached Service Centre of opposite party No. 3 for redressal of his grievance but none of the opposite parties did the needful. The plea of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that complainant sent e-mail to them which they forwarded to opposite party No. 3. The opposite parties were required to follow-up the issue of complainant and solve the same in time. In this way, all the opposite parties are held deficient in service. Neither opposite parties No. 1 & 2 tried to get the issue resolved by approaching opposite party No. 3 nor opposite party No. 3 tried to solve the issue by responding to the complaint of the complainant despite the fact that one year warranty was provided by them on the product in question. The complainant is suffering without any fault on his part and the opposite parties are trying to shift the liability on each others shoulder.

23. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 3500/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties are directed to replace Sony Home Theatre Model HT-DRT3 of complainant with new one.

24. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

25. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

26. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced:-

    30-09-2021 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

    President

     

     

    (Sukhvinder Kaur)

    Member

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member