DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C.No. 220 of 07-07-2022

Decided on : 07.03.2023

Rochak Bansal S/o S. Satpal Bansal R/o House No.2897-E, Gali No.1, Near Durga Mandir Gali, Ganesha Basti, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. Croma Store, G.T. Road, Opposite Sepal Hotel, Near ICICI Bank, Bathinda -151001.

2. Infiniti Retail Limited, Unit No.701 and 702, 7^th floor, Kaledonia, Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400069.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM

Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh. Surya Kant Singla, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Ex-parte.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President:-

1. The complainant Rochak Bansal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Croma Store and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a new Croma Water Dispenser vide order no. SOA273060000551 and invoice reference no. SLA273060000554 dated 26.12.2021 for Rs.8244/- from opposite party No.1 at Bathinda.

3. It is alleged that from day one after the purchase, the water dispenser was not in a working condition as it dispensed only hot and very cold water, whereas normal water was not being dispensed. When the complainant learnt about the aforementioned defect, he immediately approached the concerned representatives and consequently customer service personnel visited the complainant. The complainant insisted to the concerned personnel that he is not inclined to keep a defective water dispenser but the personnel repaired the water dispenser and assured the complainant that it was a minor fault and same has been satisfactorily resolved/repaired.

4. It is alleged that believing the assurances of the customer service personnel, the complainant allowed him to repair the water dispenser, however the problem was not resolved and the defect still persisted. The complainant again approached the concerned representatives and consequently another customer service personnel visited the complainant who again repaired and assured the complainant qua good working of the water dispenser, but again all in vain. Thereafter the complainant contacted the opposite parties a number of times and requested to refund the amount paid by the complainant and upon payment take back the possession of the said water dispenser, but in vain.

5. It is also alleged that thereafter complainant got served legal notice dated 14/04/2022 upon the opposite parties and requested to refund the amount paid by the complainant and upon payment take back the possession of the said water dispenser, but the opposite did not adhere to the genuine requests of the complainant.

6. It is also alleged that the act and conduct of opposite parties is illegal, malafide, unreasonable, arbitrary, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice and amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which complainant is suffering from great mental tension, agony, harassment and financial loss. As such the complainant claims Rs.1,00,000/ as a compensation.

7. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount paid by complainant and upon payment take back the possession of the said dispenser and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation besides Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.

8. Registered A.D. Notice of complaint was sent to the opposite parties but none appeared on their behalf. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against them.

9. The complainant led expparte evidence. In exparte evidence, complainant tendered his affidavit dated 5.7.2022 (Ex. C-6) and the documents (Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5).

10. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully.

11. From the perusal of record, it is clearly established that water dispenser was purchased by the complainant after making payment of Rs. 9283/- to the opposite parties vide Ex. C-1 and a perusal of warranty card which is Ex. C-7 on record shows that product was having warranty of 24 months from the date of purchase of the invoice. Since the product was not provided service as promised and failure on the part of the opposite parties to repair the same, amounts to deficiency in service.

12. Accordingly, complaint is allowed with Rs. 1,000/- as cost and the opposite parties are directed to repair the water dispenser of the complainant.

13. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

14. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

15. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced:-

    07-03-2023

     

    1. (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member