Hyderabad District Commission Holds Jio Mart Liable For Failure To Provide Essential Product Details For Consumers To Make Informed Choice

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Jio Mart liable for deficiency in services for failure to provide essential details about the manufacturer, return, refund, or installation services to the Complainant when he purchased a Chimney from the website. The bench directed it to refund Rs. 13,999/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the Complainant. Brief Facts: Mr. Aditya Kumar Prajapati (“Complainant”) purchased an Elica Electric Chimney through Jio Mart's platform. Following the purchase, the Complainant requested the installation of the chimney, which was chargeable. Despite agreeing to the charges, the Complainant received no positive response, leading him to decide to return the product. However, due to the unavailability of a return link on Jio Mart's online platform, he sent an email request for the return. Despite issuing a service request number, Jio Mart did not provide the return link. Subsequent complaints by the Complainants went unanswered, prompting him to purchase and install an alternative chimney. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Jio Mart. In response, Jio Mart argued that installation issues fall under the purview of the manufacturer and their authorized service centre, absolving it from any claim. It asserted that being neither the manufacturer nor the authorized service provider, it was not liable for the alleged deficiency in installation services. It contended that the Complainant's request for installation was escalated to the product's manufacturer, who remained unresponsive. Additionally, it claimed that it scheduled an engineer visit to resolve the issue, which the Complainant rejected. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission noted that the Tax Invoice sent by Jio Mart to the Complainant lacked essential details about the manufacturer, return, refund, or installation services, necessary for the consumer to make informed choices, as mandated by Sec. 5(3)(c) of the Consumer Protection Rules. While Jio Mart is generally not responsible for after-sales services, the District Commission held that E-Commerce Rules necessitate the provision of crucial product information. It held that Jio Mart, by not furnishing these details, was held liable for deficiency in services. The District Commission noted that despite the Complainant's willingness to pay installation charges, there was no response from Jio Mart. Consequently, the District Commission was held liable for not providing after-sales service details, failing to resolve the consumer's grievance, and rendering the purchased product useless. Consequently, the District Commission directed Jio Mart to refund Rs. 13,999/- to the Complainant upon returning the product and to pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation for the inconvenience suffered by the Complainant.

Hyderabad District Commission Holds Jio Mart Liable For Failure To Provide Essential Product Details For Consumers To Make Informed Choice

Smita Singh

Tags