View 16958 Cases Against Reliance
View 1675 Cases Against Reliance Retail
SANGEETA DEVI filed a consumer case on 20 Feb 2019 against RELIANCE RETAIL in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/407/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 13 Mar 2019.
CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer Complaint no. 407/2016
Date of Institution 24/08/2016
Order Reserved on 20/02/2019
Date of Order 22/02/2019 In matter of
Ms. Sangeeta Devi
D/o Sh. Akhil Chandra Gupta
R/o S-66A, Top Floor,
Pandav Nagar, Delhi 110092……………...………..…………….Complainant
Vs
Reliance Retail Ltd.
UGS Space,
C 51, Preet Vihar Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092
Complainant In Person
Opponent Mr Kapil Kumar Sharma
Quorum Sh Sukhdev Singh President
Dr P N Tiwari Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari Member
Brief Facts of the case -
Complainant purchased one Gold chain weigh 8.520 grams from OP for a sum of Rs 23,435/- on 27/07/2015 (Ex CW1/1), but after wearing for about two months, it got blacked. She went to OP for getting it replaced, but chain was neither replaced nor refunded and the staff of OP asked for another labour charges of Rs 4000/- for getting it replaced. Seeing cheating and harassment and financial loss, so filed this complaint and claimed compensation of Rs 75,000/-with replacement of her chain.
OP submitted written statement and denied all allegations of complainant. It was stated that their products were of International standard and had BIS Hallmarked jewelry where 100% purity had been certified by the Govt of India and the said Gold Chain vide Article Code SKU364117, 22K-P Chain of 22 K (carat) weight of 8.520 gms for sum of Rs 23435/-in cash which was purchased by complainant vide invoice no. 841111015/N00562 on dated 28/07/2015 (Ex. OPW1/1). Purchased Chains of 22 carat had certain terms and conditions for use and cleanings as per BIS certification (Ex OPW1/1A &2A). It was also submitted that complainant had also purchased 04 other chains on the same date (28/07/2015) vide Article Code no. 4-G1480 as 22K-P-Chains 22 K through card payments of Rs 33685/.21 and rest in cash total amount for a sum of Rs 38919.52 (Ex OPW1/2), thus and complainant purchased for total Rs 1,101,61.10 on the same date. It was stated that complainant did not mention that cash received in return of chains after one year of use without alleging any defect and a sum of Rs 60224.92 were transferred in her account on 21/07/2016. The allegation of getting chain black after using for about two months had no evidence on record. Hence, there was no deficiency in OP services or defects in any of purchased items so there was no reason for claiming compensation from this Ld Forum illegally and thus this complaint may be dismissed with cost.
Complainant in her rejoinder denied all replies of OP and relied on her facts of complainant. She also denied that she received Rs 60,224.92 as refunded money for returning of chains from OP. It was also stated that OP had refunded for other items, but not for chains. In her evidences on her own affidavit she affirmed that her invoice (Ex CW1/1) was correct. Hence, prayed for passing her compensation as OP did not refund the cost of chain despite of repeated visiting OP office.
OP filed evidence on affidavit through Mr. Ravinder Thusu working as Manager with OP relied on their two invoices Ex OPW1/1 &2 with their terms and conditions laid down by BIS (Ex OPW1/1A&2A). It was stated that as per BIS specifications, all Gold articles of 22 carat had to be used carefully as they were of pure Gold whereas other Gold articles contains metals for more hardness and bear local changes. Hence, pure Gold articles had tendency to turn black temporarily. All allegations of complainant were without any evidences and imaginary and false. There was no evidence which could prove that the Gold articles including Chains were of inferior quality and got black after using for two months. When amount was refunded even after one year of purchase, then there was neither deficiency in their service or Gold articles had any manufacturing defects, hence this complaint may be dismissed.
Arguments were heard from counsel of OP and complainant and after perusal of materials on record, order was reserved.
We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was observed that complainant has not filed required evidence of amount refunded in her bank account as stated by OP through any evidence. More so, complainant had not stated in her complaint about detail of purchase of other Gold items on the same dates. There was no evidence of blackening of chains ever submitted by complainant. So, there is no merits in this complaint and that being so, complaint deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without any direction or cost.
The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18(6) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 ( in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of CPR.
(Dr) P N Tiwari –Member Mrs Harpreet Kaur – Member
Sukhdev Singh President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.