Delhi

Central Delhi

CC/273/2017

SUDHIR GIRI - Complainant(s)

Versus

CROMA STORE & OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jul 2022

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/273/2017
( Date of Filing : 27 Nov 2017 )
 
1. SUDHIR GIRI
6/12, WEST PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHI-08.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. CROMA STORE & OTHERS
PLOT NO. 3, PUSA ROAD, BLOCK 18A, WEA KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI 05.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. REKHA RANI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. VYAS MUNI RAI MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. SHAHINA MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 29 Jul 2022
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL)ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI


COMPLAINT CASE NO. 273/2017

 

No. DC/ Central/

 

  1.  

Sh. Sudhir Giri

s/o Late Sh. Harvir Giri

r/o 6/12, West Patel Nagar,

New Delhi-110008

COMPLAINANT

 

vs.

 

  1.  

Croma Store

Plot 3, Pusa Road,

Block 18A, WEA

Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005

OPPOSITE PARTY

  1.  

M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Principal Officer

Having its Registered Office at:

A-25, Ground Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Saidabad,

New Delhi, Delhi-110044       

 

 

 

 

Coram:       Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

                   Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

 

ORDER

Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

 

  1. Complainant has filed this complaint on 27.11.2017 & has alleged that on 23.07.2017 he purchased a mobile handset i.e., Samsung Galaxy S8 Model No. SMG950FZKDINS costing Rs.57, 900/- from OP no.1 vide bill no. SLAI04020068414. Complainant further alleged that at the time of the purchase, OP did not disclose to the complainant regarding the offer of a Free Wireless Charger worth Rs. 4, 500/- with the handset. Complainant further alleged that the said charger was not given, and he was also not given a proper demo of the working of the phone. The complainant has further alleged that the OP no.1 is guilty of providing incomplete services by not disclosing the necessary and requisite information. The complainant has also alleged that after purchasing and after using the product he came to know that said mobile has various defects. First the phone battery was found to be faulty. Secondly, connectivity issues in the Wi-Fi settings of the phone and lastly the phone camera features of ‘one touch focus’ was also found to be none functional.  Due to said problems the said phone was deposited with the service centre of OP no.1 on 28.08.2017, the authorized service centre. Complainant has alleged that the OP is guilty of non- disclosure of scheme & offers like free charger and exchange policies of the manufacturing company. OPs did not rectify the defect. Hence complainant has prayed that OPs be directed to replace the defective phone handset sold to the complainant with a new and properly functioning handset along with the requisite warranty/guaranty card as the product under reference is within the period of warranty/guaranty as per the invoice/bill provided to the complainant by Croma. A sum of Rs.60, 000/- as compensation has also been prayed.

 

  1. OP1 has been proceeded ex-parte on 27.11.2018.

 

  1.  In reply, OP2 (Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.) has not denied the purchase of the said mobile handset by the OP no.1 and has denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint. OP no.2 has further stated that as per condition of warranty, replacement of the product and refund is expressly excluded. It is submitted that the OP no.2 never gave any service for the handset as the complainant never approached for the same. OP no.2 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

 

  1. In support of his complaint the complainant filed his own affidavit along with documents. In support of reply, OP no.2 also filed affidavit of Mr. Amindya Bose along with documents. Both the parties have filed their written arguments.

 

 

 

  1. We have heard arguments and considered the evidence led by the parties and their written and oral arguments.

 

  1.  In the present case we have carefully gone through the record and the documents placed on the file. OP has admitted the facts of purchase of mobile. The complainant has filed the job sheet given by the OP no. 1 wherein the warranty details of one year and the complainant has written all the issues of the said mobile set as which are as under:-
  1. Battery drained issue
  2. Wi fi not connected
  3. Touch problem
  4. one touch focus not working
  5. vision not functioning

 

  1. OP no. 1 has not rectified the problem. All these above mentioned facts clarify that the said mobile set purchased by the complainant having manufacturing defect as well as negligence of the OP no.1 regarding service.

 

  1. OPs are directed to replace the defective phone handset sold to the complainant with a new along with warranty. OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5, 000/- towards compensation and litigation. Complainant is directed to return old handset to the OP. We order accordingly.
  2. The order shall be complied with by all the ops jointly and severely with in a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order.
  3. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on this 16th August of 2022.

                                     

                                                                

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. REKHA RANI]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. VYAS MUNI RAI]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. SHAHINA]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.