Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/162/2019

Ravi Shankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Reliance Retail Limited Reliance Digital - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jun 2022

ORDER

o

District Consumer Commission, Bokaro.

Case No. 162/2019

  Date of Filing-06-12-2019

 Date of Order-22-06-2022

Ravi Shankar S/o Sri Pawan Kumar Thakur,

 R/o Sector-3-E 609, Bokaro Steel City, Jharkhand  

Vr.

 

1. The Manager, Reliance Retail Limited Reliance Digital Unit No. 303,304,305 Bokaro Mall Sector-3/C, Bokaro, Jharkhand 827003

 2. The Branch Manager Reliance Retail Limited Digital, Sidroul Ranchi DC M/s Vinaika Campus, Lali Rajaulhatu Road Jharkhand 834010

 3. The General Manager Reliance Retail Limited Digital 3^rd Floor, court House Lokmanya Tilak Marg Dhobi Talao Mumbai 400002

Present:-

          Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

           Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

                                                -Order-

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. for payment of Rs. 26,628.27/- the price of the T.V. Set and to pay Rs. 20,000/- & Rs. 5,000/- respectively as compensation and litigation cost to him.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased LED T.V. of RECONNECT of 39” Model No. 3902 on 12.12.2015 from the shop of O.P.No.1 (Reliance Digital) on payment of Rs. 26,628.27/- and it was having warranty for two years and extended warranty for further  two years provided by RELIANCE  resQ care plan. Further case is that extended warranty was till 12.12.2019 but on 24.08.2019 T.V. started not to function hence on contact the technician of O.Ps. checked the T.V. and informed that it is not working and not repairable. Further case is that on contact with representative of T.V. Company it was informed that complainant will get 40% of the total purchase price then, complainant realized that he has been cheated by the O.Ps. hence legal notice was served having no impact, thereafter case has been filed.   
3.   O.P. No.1,2 & and 3 have filed W.S. in which all the allegations made by the complainant have been denied in detail. Further it is mentioned that these O.Ps. have not received any complaint from the complainant rather on the basis of concocted story this case has been filed on false assertion which is liable to be dismissed.
4. Only question for consideration is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed?  
5. On behalf of complainant photo copy of the delivery note regarding delivery of the T.V. Set  on 14.12.2015 (Annexure 1), photo copy of invisible payment slip (another Annexure –1) , photo copy of declaration (Annexure-2) and photo copy of legal notice (Annexure-3) have been filed and except it no other evidence either oral or documentary have been produced by the complainant.
6.  No any evidence either oral or documentary has been produced by the O.Ps.

 

7.  From perusal of the pleadings of the parties it appears that all the assertions of the complaint petition have been denied by the O.Ps. hence burden was on the complainant to prove its case for getting relief from this Commission.
8. It reveals from the record that complainant has not proved the fact that the T.V. set which was alleged to be purchased was later on not functioning properly. He has also not proved the fact that said T.V. set was not repairable. Complainant has also not offered the O.Ps. for getting the T.V. Set be examined by any expert to establish that it was having defect which was not repairable. In this way we are of the opinion that complainant has failed to prove its case for grant of relief as claimed.
9.  Hence in light of above discussion this case is being dismissed with cost.