DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 162/2022
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
21.05.2022 03.06.2022 08.04.2024
Complainant/s:- | Mr. Subhankar Kayal, P.S. Bhatpara, P.O. – Fingapara, Bhatpara 743129, West Bengal. Phone No. 8981340525 Email:- kayal.subhankar101@gmail.com |
Opposite Party/s:- | Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, P.O & P.O. – Belladur, Bengaluru, 560103, Karnataka, India. |
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint under Section 34 (1), 34 (2) (d) 35, 36 and 39 of the C.P. Act, 2019 against the aforesaid opposite party.
He alleged that he had purchased Realme 9 Pro 5G (Sunrise Blue, 128 GB) mobile with the cost of Rs. 18048/- on 17/03/2021 and he received the said article from the O.P on 21/03/2022. But he faced technical issues on the very next day for which he chooses to replace the said product. One person visited the Complainant and he stated that there was a problem in the phone and same was not shown in the system. He couldn’t arrange for replacement. Hence, the Complainant filed this case.
O.P filed W/V. He denied the entire allegations of the Complainant and further contended that Complainant is not entitled to any relief from the O.P. He prays for dismissal of the case.
Decisions with Reasons:-
We have carefully gone through the affidavit-in-chief filed by the Complainant. We have carefully gone through the documents on record. We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant at length.
On perusal of Tax invoice issued on behalf of the O.P we find that Complainant purchased the aforesaid product with the cost of Rs. 18048/-. On perusal of the evidence of the Complainant we find that immediately after purchased of the said product Complainant found some defects and informed the same to the O.P but said defects not yet been solved and aforesaid product was not replaced.
O.P in their W/V stated that complainant is not entitled to replacement of the aforesaid product. They failed to assign any cogent reason in support of their contention. Accordingly, we find that such type of contention bears no merit.
Contd. To Page No. 2. . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No. 162/2022
Complainant being a consumer should not suffer from the very next date of purchase of the said product. He alleged about the defect of the product to the O.P and representative of the O.P visited his house but problems of the product lying in the place as if where it was.
It was the duty of the O.P to take proper care to sort out the problem but he did not do so. When his representative felt the necessity to replace the product, he left away. O.P from his representative came to learn that product is not functioning properly so it was his duty to replace the product. But he did not take any effective steps. Even did not take any steps to refund the purchase value in favour of the Complainant.
Aforesaid act of the O.P is nothing but deficiency in service.
On perusal of record we find that the complainant is the consumer and O.P is the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that complainant has able to established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled to reliefs as per his prayer.
In the result, the present case succeeds.
Hence,
it is ordered,
that the present case be and the same vide No. 162/2022 is allowed on contest against the O.P with cost of Rs. 5,000/-( Rs. Five thousand ) to be paid by O.P in favour of the complainant.
O.P is directed to replace the aforesaid product by another new product of the same model within 45 days from this date failing which complainant shall have to liberty to put this order into execution.
O.P is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) in favour of the complainant as compensation for his harassment and mental pain within 45 days from this date, failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR 2005.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President
Member President
