Jio Mart, Reliance Retail to refund Rs. 13,999; Rs. 1,000 compensation for delayed installation of Electric Chimney

HYDERABAD: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Jio Mart and Reliance Retail Limited to refund Rs. 13,999 and pay Rs. 1,000 compensation for delayed installation of an Elica Electric Chimney purchased by a customer in Hyderabad.

Aditya Kumar Prajapati (40), a resident of Nallagandla, purchased an Elica Electric Chimney from Reliance Retail Limited from Jio Mart on February 26, 2023, and paid an amount of Rs. 13,299, and the said product was delivered on February 27, 2023. On the same day, Aditya raised a request for installation of the said product with customer care.

However, he was informed that the same was chargeable. Aditya agreed to pay for the installation service, and was assured that a technician would contact him within 72 hours.

Despite following up on March 1, 2023, and contacting customer care for installation of the product, Aditya received no response from the Jio Mart and Reliance Retail Limited. Aditya attempted to return the product via email on March 7, 2023 but found no return link on Jio Mart online platform. Despite reminders, both Jio Mart and Reliance Retail Limited failed to address the issue. Consequently, the complainant purchased a replacement electric chimney from Flipkart on March 10, 2023, which was installed in their new flat.

Aditya asserted that the Jio Mart and Reliance Retail Limited failed to provide installation services for the purchased product and did not facilitate the return process. Despite Aditya's willingness to pay for installation, both Jio Mart and Reliance Retail Limited did not fulfill their obligation. However, in response to an online complaint lodged with the National consumer helpline, the Jio Mart and Reliance Retail Limited mentioned on May 8, 2023 that installation would be chargeable, contradicting their earlier statement. Dissatisfied with this inconsistency and alleging deficient service, Aditya filed the present complaint seeking appropriate relief.

In their written response, the Jio Mart and Reliance Retail Limited denied the allegations and argued that Aditya’s complaint lacked merit due to the absence of necessary parties involved in the installation process. They asserted that installation fell under the after-sale services provided by the manufacturer and their authorised service centers, and as retailers, they are not liable for such services. They even said that they escalated the installation request to the manufacturer, who did not respond. Additionally, they mentioned attempting to resolve the issue by scheduling an engineer visit, which the complainant rejected.

They contended that since the return request was made after the 5-day window had passed, they were not obligated to accept it. Thus, they sought dismissal of the complaint, claiming no deficiency of service on their part.

During the inquiry, Aditya submitted evidence reaffirming their claims, including invoices, payment records, email correspondence, FAQs on product liability in e-commerce, and documentation related to the complaint and response, as well as a letter regarding the possession of their new flat.

The undisputed facts were that the Aditya purchased an Elica Electric Chimney through the Jio Mart on February 26, 2023 and paid Rs.13, 299. The product was delivered on February 27, 2023. Despite requesting installation and attempting to return the product due to the absence of installation services and return links, both opposite parties Jio Mart and Reliance Retail Limited failed to address the issue,‘forcing him to purchase another electric chimney from Flipkart.

Regarding the liability for installation, while the Jio Mart and Reliance Retail Limited were not responsible for after-sales services, they were obligated under E-Commerce Rules to provide essential product details. The court noted that the lack of information regarding the manufacturer and installation services constitutes a deficiency of service on the part of both Jio Mart and Reliance Retail Limited.

The court noted that conflicting information from both Jio Mart and Reliance Retail Limited regarding installation charges indicated their failure to provide clear communication. Despite Aditya's willingness to pay for installation, the opposite parties did not respond. The court also noted that Jio Mart and Reliance Retail Limited claimed the issue was resolved over the phone, which was not substantiated.

The court ordered that both Jio Mart and Reliance Retail Limited were jointly and severally liable to refund the purchase amount of Rs.13,999 upon return of the product. The forum also asked them to pay Rs.1 000 as compensation for the inconvenience suffered by Aditya and his family.