Ankush Gupta filed a consumer case on 17 Feb 2023 against Infiniti Retail Ltd in the Ambala Consumer Court. The case no is CC/160/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 28 Feb 2023.
Haryana
Ambala
CC/160/2022
Ankush Gupta - Complainant(s)
Versus
Infiniti Retail Ltd - Opp.Party(s)
Bhanu Partap Singh
17 Feb 2023
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.
Complaint case no.
:
160 of 2022
Date of Institution
:
25.05.2022
Date of decision
:
17.02.2023
Ankush Gupta son of Chaman Lal Gupta R/o House No.717 Sector-9, Urban Estate, Ambala City.
……. Complainant
Versus
Infiniti Retail Limited (CROMA) through its authorized officer shop at SCO No.57 Ground Floor, Madhya Marg Sector 26 Chandigarh.
Samsung authorized Service Center through its Manager Cross Road 8, Mochi Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Sadar, Haryana.
….…. Opposite Parties.
Before: Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.
Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,
Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.
Present: Shri Bhanu Partap Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.
OPs already ex parte.
Order: Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.
1. Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-
To replace the said mobile set with a new one or to pay Rs.13,999/-, as price of the said mobile set as per bill dated 07.03.2021 & insurance charges of Rs.885/-, as charges illegally by the OP No.1.
To pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one Samsung Mobile set bearing IMEI No.350766960630830, vide Bill No.SLA079020073435 dated 07.03.2021 of Rs.13,999/- from the OP No.1 and also got insured the mobile set from it and paid Rs.885/-, for the insurance. OP No.1 assured the complainant that the mobile in question is of good quality and will not give any complaint of any kind. It is further assured that the said mobile bears a warranty of one year and also assured that in the event of Damage (in any case) the same covers under the insurance and in case of any default/under the insurance, the same will be replaced/repaired by OP No.1. The said mobile was physically damaged in March 2022 and the complainant contacted to the OP No.1 toll free number and who raised request vide SR ID BOFO50322EW00595 dated 05.03.2022 and also suggested to approach to OP No.2 to rectify the problem. Complainant also visited the office of OP No.2, who told that the problem can only be rectified by OP No.1. Complainant contacted several times to the OP No.1 and raised the complaint vide Sr. No.BOF070322EW00633 dated 07.03.2022 and thereafter Sr. No.BOF240322EW01303 dated 24.03.2022 and on 17.03.2022 the mobile of the complainant was took by the agent of the OP No.1 but after 15 days the same was returned to the complainant without repair/replacement. There is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by not repairing/replacing the faulty/damaged mobile set in question. Hence, the present complaint.
Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs, before this Commission, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.07.2022.
Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also carefully gone through the case file.
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the OPs neither repaired/replaced the faulty/damaged/defective mobile in question, nor refunded the price thereof, despite knowing the fact that the same was under warranty period, hence, the OPs are deficient in providing service.
It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased a Samsung Galaxy A12 bearing IMEI No.350766960630830 vide bill no.SLA079020073435 dated 07.03.2021 against amount of Rs.13,999/- from OP No.1 with one year warranty and also insured the mobile with it after paying Rs.885/- as insurance premium as per Annexure C-6. The complainant has come with the plea that on 05.03.2022, the mobile phone got physical cracked and damaged during the subsistence of insurance period, which was valid for one year. As per Annexure C-3 to C-5 clearly depict that mobile Screen cracked and damaged. In the present case OPs have also proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the mobile set in question of the complainant became damaged within the warranty period and he approached the OPs various times, but the Ops have failed to resolve the grievance of the complainant. Hence, the OPs have committed an act of unfair trade practice, so the OPs are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs jointly and severally, in the following manner:-
To replace the mobile set bearing IMEI No. 350766960630830, with the new one of the same model with fresh warranty. If the OPs are not in position to replace the said mobile of the same model, then refund the amount of Rs.13,999/-,to the complainant.
To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation charges
The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
Announced:- 17.02.2023.
(Vinod Kumar Sharma)
(Ruby Sharma)
(Neena Sandhu)
Member
Member
President
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.