You are on page 1of 6

1

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM


LUDHIANA

CC 16/ 340
IN THE MATTER OF:

A S Medicos

.... Complainant

Versus

Reliance Retail Limited & Others

... Opposite Party

REPLY ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:


At the outset, the Opposite Party No. 1 denies the averments and contentions
made by the Complainant in the present complaint except those which are
expressly and specifically adverted to and admitted herein.
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS/OBJECTIONS
1.

It is submitted that the answering Opposite Party is a seller of various electronic


items of many manufacturers at its Stores like Sony, Samsung, Nokia,
Blackberry, Apple, LG etc. Thus, the stores of the Opposite Party No. 1 cater
to its customers with different requirements. Whenever a customer asks for or
wants to buy or know about some device or product, the Opposite Party No. 1
apprise them of the various features of the product to the customer, as per the
literature provided by the manufacturer. Similarly, the complainant was
apprised of the features of Apple Macbook Air as well as the terms and

2
conditions together with the features of Insurance which was being provided by
National Insurance Company Limited. Moreover, the complainant was also
provided with the booklet/ card of the warranty terms and what was covered
under the said warranty by the Manufacturer. The said Warranty Card also
contained detailed terms & conditions governing the policy which was also very
clearly communicated to the Complainant. From the bare perusal of the
Warranty Card it is clear the onus of providing service is on the Manufacturer
alone through its Service Centres and it never shifts on the Retailer. Further,
from the Policy documents which has been filed by the Complainant it could be
seen that complete process regarding the Activation / Policy Registration has
been declared on the Policy documents. For better visibility of the Policy
Holders the information pertaining to the Registration Process of the Policy had
been declared in highlighted font in a separate rectangular box and it was the
responsibility of the Complainant to register itself with the concerned Insurance
Company to avail the benefits of the Insurance Further, it was also
communicated to the Complainant that in case of any claim with the Insurance
Company, the policy holder i.e the Complainant needs to deal with Insurance
Company directly as the Insurance Company is a separate legal entity which
have their own terms & conditions and the Opposite Party has no role into it.

2. That the present Complainant is not maintainable against the Opposite Party
No. 1 as the Complainant had never informed about the alleged defect in the
Apple Mac book as the Store of the OP1 was closed permanently since
03/01/2016. The Complainant was dealing directly with the Service Centre of
Apple Mac book and for the reasons best known to the Complainant, the

3
Complainant has neither made the Service Centre to whom the Complainant
approached for Services and gave quotation for repair neither has made the
Manufacturer a party in the instant complaint. As the Store of OP1 was not in
operation , it never demanded any sum towards the repair of the Laptop and
is trying to mislead the Honble Forum.

3.

That the present complaint is not maintainable as the role of answering


Opposite Party is limited and there has been no deficiency of service on the
part of Opposite Party No. 1. Opposite Party No 1 being a seller /dealer had
fulfilled its responsibility and is not liable for any damages to the complainant.

4.

That the present complaint is legally not maintainable against the answering
Opposite Party as no cause of action has arisen in favour of the Complainant
against the answering Opposite Party. It is submitted that all the customers are
explained the features of the phone together with the terms and conditions of
the warranty & Insurance, if the Customer expresses his desire to enroll for
insurance policy and this was the case with the present complainant also.
Hence the complaint being without any cause of action is liable to be dismissed
with exemplary costs.

5. That the present complaint has been filed with the express intent of extracting
wrongful gain from the answering Opposite Party in the garb of the present
complaint and to justify its own wrongful conduct. The present complaint has
been filed with the intent of extracting vendetta on the answering Opposite
Party.

4
In view of the above preliminary objections, no case is made out against the
Opposite Party No. 1 and therefore, the complaint must be dismissed with
exemplary costs particularly also for employing the rightful legal authority of this
Honble Forum to harass and extract wrongful gain from the answering
Opposite Party.

PARAWISE REPLY:
1. The contents of para No.1 of the complaint is admitted only to the extent of
selling the said Laptop & Insurance Policy to the Complainant. It is denied that
the said amount was also paid towards the service to the OP1. The role of OP1
is limited up to sale of the products only and services to its product are provided
by the respective Companies only. In addition to this the submissions made in
Preliminary submissions / objections may also be read in Reply to this Para.

2. That the contents of Para 2 is denied for want of knowledge.

3-5 That the contents of para No.3, 4 & 5 of the complaint are vehemently denied.
The Complainant never ever informed about the alleged defect to the OP1 and
accordingly have never demanded any such sum as mentioned in the Para
under reply. The Complainant be put to strict proof. The same is also clear from
the documents on record filed by the Complainant. It is also submitted that the
said Store of OP1 was closed permanently from 03/01/2016 and the date of
incident as stated by the Complainant in this Complaint is of 27/01/2016, hence
the statement of the Complainant of submitting the defective laptop does not
arise at all. The Complainant is misleading the Honble Forum with totally

5
imaginary story just to cover its own fault. The Complainant never ever
contacted the OP1 and hence submissions of lap top does not arise.

6. That in reply to the averments made in Para 6 it is stated that the same is denied
as false. The conduct of the OP1 had remained transparent from the day one
and there has been no deficiency on the part of OP1. In addition to this the
submissions made in the preliminary objections may also be read in reply to
this para.
7. That the contents of Para 7 is denied that the Honble Forum has jurisdiction to
hear this false & frivolous complaint.

8. That the contents of Para 8 is legal & requires no comments.

The last para of the complaint is a prayer to this Honble Forum and Opposite Party
No. 1 denies it and further prays that the false & frivolous complaint be dismissed with
exemplary costs

Opposite Party No.1


(Through its Store Manager)

THROUGH
(Sahil Sharma)
Advocate for Opposite Party No. 1
Ludhiana
Dated:

.2016

VERIFICATION
I, Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Santosh Kumar the Store Manager of the Opposite Party No.
1, above named do hereby solemnly affirm and verify that the contents of Paragraphs

6
of the Parawise Reply are true and correct to my knowledge and derived from the
various official records of the Answering Opposite Party, kept in the normal course
of business, made available to me and believed by me to be true. The contents of
Paragraph Nos. 1 to 5 of the Preliminary Objections are true and correct on the
basis of the legal advice received by me and believed by me to be true and correct.
The contents of Paragraph of the last Paragraph are a prayer to this Hon'ble Forum.

Verified at Ludhiana on this

day of

, 2016.

Store Manager
(Opposite Party No. 1)