Mumbai: Consumer forum directs firm to offer LED TV as promised in data plan 

Mumbai: A district consumer commission has directed Reliance Retail Ltd to provide a good quality LED TV commensurate with the service plan purchased by a Borivali resident, within two months of the order. 

The complainant, Hemant Shah, had purchased a one-year consolidated telephone and data ‘Gold Plan’ from Reliance Retail Ltd for which he was given different offers, including a free LED TV. However, he was not given the TV despite repeated requests and even a legal notice. Finally, he moved the district commission which ruled in his favour. The  commission also ordered payment of Rs8,000 to Shah towards mental agony and the litigation cost, failing which an annual interest of 7% will be charged. 

Complainant moved court after no reply to legal notice

Shah had purchased a one-year consolidated telephone and data plan for Rs20,893, including a multipurpose voucher worth Rs3,495.02, through net banking on February 29, 2020. However, he did not receive the promised 24-inch LED HD TV till date despite repeated reminders.

As per marketing person of Reliance Jio Fiber, Shah was promised either double data or two-month extra validity or free Bluetooth speaker or LED TV on opting for the annual plan. Shah complained that the company did not reply even to the legal notice. Finally he moved the consumer body. 

Even when the notice was sent, the opposite party did not respond so an ex-parte order was passed. During the hearing, the commission observed that as the Jio plan document annexed to the complaint clearly stated the options, the averment made by the complainant that he was offered LED TV on upfront payment is corroborated. 

The commission added that in all e-mails sent by different members of the company, they are only apologising and assuring the complainant that they are waiting for a response from their team. The commission said that “empty promises made in email corroborate the non-resolution of dispute of the complainant, and thereby proves deficiency of service and unfair trade practice”. The commission also said that the opposite party ought to have appeared before it as it received the payment from the complainant and issued a tax invoice and receipt.