Haryana

StateCommission

A/1422/2017

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJEEV - Opp.Party(s)

LALIT SOOD

17 Apr 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                First Appeal No  :      1422 of 2017

Date of Institution:     24.11.2017

Date of Decision :     17.04.2018

 

 

 

1.      Reliance Retail Limited, HR-KTHL-JC-01, 77/10 and 78/10, Karnal Road, Near Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal through its Director.

 

2.      Reliance Corporate Parke, Building No.4, 5 TTC, Industrial Area, Thane Belapur Road, Ghausoli, Navi Mumbai-400 701 through its Director.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

 

Versus

 

 

Sanjeev son of Sh. Ram Kala, resident of Gali No.6, Amargarh, Gamri, Kaithal.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member                                    

 

                                                                       

 

 

 

Argued by:          Shri Lalit Sood, Advocate for appellants

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

The instant appeal has been filed by Reliance Retail Limited and another-opposite parties No.1 & 2 (appellants herein) against the order dated September 28^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short, ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Sanjeev-complainant was allowed.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint exparte and direct the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide bill/invoice No.437 dated July 04^th, 2016.  However, it is made clear that if the said mobile as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the opposite parties, then the opposite parties shall refund Rs.6,500/- as to the cost of the mobile set to the complainant.  The opposite parties are also burdened with costs of Rs.1,100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant.  All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable….”

 

2.      The complainant purchased mobile handset for Rs.6500/- from Gurlove Telecom, Kaithal-opposite party No.1 (Authorized Dealer) on July 04^th, 2016.  After a few days, some defects were developed in the mobile handset.  He approached Reliance Retail Limited-opposite party No.2.  The opposite party No.2 returned the mobile handset to the complainant by mentioning that the mobile handset was tampered. The complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset but they did not pay any heed.

3.      The opposite parties were proceeded ex parte before the District Forum.   

4.      It is not in dispute that the mobile handset purchased by the complainant developed defects during the warranty period.  The opposite party No.2 returned the mobile handset with the remarks that the mobile handset was tampered.  The complainant also got registered two complaints on customer care of opposite parties but the opposite parties did not give any plausible reply.  Despite service, the opposite parties did not appear to contest the complaint.  Thus, the impugned order does not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed.

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.3800/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 17.04.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK