Karnataka

StateCommission

A/2996/2016

M/s. Reliance Retail Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

S. Suresh - Opp.Party(s)

C.K. Dharaneeswaran

29 Oct 2021

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH    : PRESIDENT

MR. K. B. SANGANNAVAR                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. DIVYASHREE M.                                     : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 2996/2016

 

1.  M/s. Reliance Retail Ltd.,      4C, Reliance Corporate Park,      Thane, Balepur Road, Ghansoli,      Navi Mumbai-400 701      and a retail store at Reliance Retail Ltd.,      III Floor, Court House,      Lokamanya Tilak Marg,      Dibitlav, Mumbai-400002 2.  The Manager      Reliance Retail Ltd.,      (Reliance Fresh Limited)      Nazarabad Mohalla, M.G.Road,      Indira Nagar Extension, Mysore-570 010 3.  Santhosh      Sales Manager,      Reliance Retail Ltd.,      Nazarabad Mohalla, M.G. Road,      Indiranagar Extension, Mysore-570 010 4.  Manjula      Cashier and Sales Manager      Reliance Retail Ltd.,      Nazarabad Mohalla,      M.G. Road, Indiranagar Extension,      Mysore-570010 (By Sri. Srinivasa M.) V/s

……Appellants

1.  S. Suresh      S/o. Shivanna,      Residing at Balaji Nilaya,      Behind Bapuji College,      Anjaneya Layout, Valmiki Nagar,      Challakere Town, Chitradurga 2.  Mansoor      Fitter and Serviceman and Agent      Reliance Retail Ltd.,      R/o. BPL Electricals, Horpet Branch,      Chitradurga Town, Chitradurga (R1 by Manjunatha K.N.)

..…Respondents

O R D E R

 

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the OP against the order dated 27.09.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No.40/2015 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chitradurga.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 10.02.2015 complainant purchased Samsung 55 Fsd 3^rd Smart LED TV-55h8000 TV from OP No.2 for Rs.1,61,997/-.  It is alleged that after fixing the TV in the house of the complainant it was observed that there was no picture or any sound came from the said TV, only wrinkles were coming.  Complainant contacted OP No.2 over phone and informed about defects in the TV and requested to replace the same, but, OP No.2 to 4 failed to reply or repair/replace the same.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service lodged the present complaint.
3. On service of notice OP Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 remained absent and placed ex-parte.  OP No.2 appeared through his counsel and filed version admitting purchase of Samsung TV from OP No.2 and pleaded that with satisfaction of the complainant said TV has been delivered to the complainant at Mysore itself, before taking delivery the said TV was free from defects.  After delivery of the product to the complainant at Mysore itself, the function of the TV was in order and complainant while transferring the said product in the own vehicle, from Mysore to Challakere, if any damage caused to the said TV, OP No. 2 not liable to pay any compensation in any manner as the said product was free from manufacturing defect and there is no deficiency in service on its part.  Thus, sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. On the basis of pleadings and evidence, District Forum partly allowed the complaint directing OP No.2 to repair Samsung TV within one month, failing which to replace the TV within two months from the date of order.  Further on failure of this directed OP Nos.1 to 5 to return the entire amount i.e., Rs.1,61,997/- the cost of the TV within three months along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. to the complainant from the date of complaint till realisation and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
5. None appears for the appellant / OP.  Counsel for R1 present.
6. During warranty period TV set said found to be defective, not functioning properly.   As such Respondent No.1/complainant approached District Commission.  After enquiry District Forum awarded compensation of Rs.1,61,997/- cost of the TV.
7. On perusal of the order sheet appellant remained absent on all the occasions except on the date of issuance of notice on 2016.
8. There is a direction to replace TV or refund the money against which appeal is filed.  Notice served on the respondent.  No response forthcoming.  Hence, appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
9. Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for disbursal to the respondent / complainant.

​Sd/-

President

Sd/-

Judicial Member

Sd/-

Member