A district consumer disputes redressal commission in Telangana has held Reliance Retail Ltd liable for service deficiency and unfair trade practices, ordering the retailer to refund Rs 60,431 and pay Rs 20,000 in compensation and litigation costs to a customer whose new air conditioner failed shortly after installation.
The order, issued on July 7 by Commission President Chitneni Latha Kumari and member Kathyayani Khandavilli, ruled that offering assurances of priority service without resolving a verified product defect constitutes negligence under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Commission Orders Full Refund With Interest
The tribunal directed Reliance Retail to return the full purchase amount of Rs 60,431 with 9 per cent annual interest calculated from the date of purchase on April 29, 2024. Additionally, the company was ordered to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental distress and Rs 10,000 to cover legal expenses.
Reliance Retail has been granted 45 days to comply with the order. If the company fails to pay within the specified timeframe, the interest rate on the refund will increase to 12 per cent per annum. The complainant was instructed to return the air conditioner to the company upon receiving the total refund amount.
Repeated Breakdown And Inaction Lead To Complaint
The case originated from a complaint filed by 50-year-old Ranga Reddy district resident Raghavendra Kaliga, who purchased a 2.2-ton Lloyd air conditioner from a Reliance Retail store in Hyderabad on April 29, 2024. Following installation on May 1, 2024, the unit leaked water from the indoor section the following day.
Although a technician repaired the leak, the system completely stopped operating two hours later. A subsequent inspection by company personnel on May 5 revealed a damaged motherboard requiring replacement.
After store staff failed to assist with a replacement, Kaliga escalated the issue to Reliance’s service team in Mumbai. Despite sending follow-up emails on May 8, May 9, and May 10, 2024, the motherboard was never replaced and the company stopped responding. Kaliga then represented himself before the consumer forum, requesting a full refund rather than a repair.
Company Set Ex Parte Prior To Written Arguments
Reliance Retail’s legal counsel, Advocate P Srinivas Reddy, appeared before the forum but failed to submit a formal written response within the statutory timeline, resulting in the company being set ex parte on December 9, 2024.
In later written submissions, the retailer claimed it had rectified the issues and noted that customer service had communicated with Kaliga on May 7, requesting an invoice copy and promising priority assistance. The company also argued that the complainant had not demonstrated that the unit functioned properly prior to filing the case.
Rejecting these arguments, the commission observed that customer service team inaction following formal complaints amounts to negligence, noting that consumers buying new appliances do not expect major operational failures within two weeks of purchase.
