Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/229/2019

Deepjot Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Infinity Retail Limited Trading (CROMA) - Opp.Party(s)

Sanket Dhall Adv.

19 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	229/2019
Date of Institution	:	18.04.2019
Date of Decision	:	19.12.2019

 

                                       

                       

 

Deepjot Singh aged 30 years r/o H.No.5483/1, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Near IT Park, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Infinity Retail Ltd., Trading (Croma), SCO 57, A079, Sector  26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh -160101 through its Store Manager/Authorize Representative.

 

2. Infinity Retail Ltd., Regd. Office: Unit No.701 & 702, 7 HT, Floor, Kaledonia, Sahar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069 through its Managing Director.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-

Sh.Pawan Sharma, Adv.  Proxy Sh.Sanket Dhall, Adv. for the complainant

Sh.Surendera Yadav, Authorized Agent for the OPs.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the case of the complainants as alleged is that he purchased a Croma Water Dispenser 3  Tap from Croma Retail Outlet, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh vide Invoice dated 21.07.2018 for a sum of Rs.8065/-.  In July, 2018, the water dispenser both hot/cold water switch started giving problem and a complaint in this regard was made to the retail outlet on 27.08.2018 and executive of the OPs repaired the same. On 31.10.2018, the said repaired switches again started giving the same problem and on complaint, the same were repaired.  It has further been averred that the water dispenser again started giving the problem and the same was not rectified by the OPs despite his repeated requests/visits. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their written statement, the OPs, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that OP No.2 is a reputed company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Sons with a well established brand name in the sector of electronics retail. It has further been pleaded that they have always endeavored to fulfill every requirement of customers to choose best products meeting their requirements and budget.  It has further been pleaded that on receipt of the complaint, the technician contacted the complainant for repairs but he denied any need for repairs and hence the product was not repaired on the said date. It has further been pleaded that the complainant raised a concern with the support team vide CRM No.DEL181218FS00205 but the said request was cancelled on the same day.  Further, he raised the concern vide CRM No.DEL290119FS00548 but denied the technician for repairing the product.   It has further been pleaded that the OPs have always paid immediate attention to the concerns of the complainant but he has been denying the repair procedure when technician approached him. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties stating that the service mechanic visited the site for repair the item 2-3 times but the problem still exist and as such he requested the OPs to replace the water dispenser but the OPs had failed to replace the same because the same is having manufacturing defect.
4.         We have heard the learned proxy Counsel for the complainant, authorized agent of the OPs and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         The grievance of the complainant is that the technician of the OPs visited his premises 2-3 times and repaired the product but the same was still giving the same problem and as such he requested the OPs to replace the item with a new one but they failed to do so.
6.         On other hand, the stand of the OPs is that they have always given prompt response to the grievance of the complainant but apart from the issue raised for the first time, he had either cancelled the request or not allowed the technician of the OPs to check and repair the product.
7.         The water dispenser in question started giving problem soon after its purchase and the same has already been repaired by the OPs and the same is still giving the problem meaning thereby that there is some inherent defect in it and the same cannot be rectified by effecting repairs and as such we are of the considered view that the grievance of the complainant can only be redressed by directing the OPs to replace the same with a new one.  The OPs are, thus, proved to be deficient in rendering the proper services to be complainant.
8.         For the reasons stated above, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the OPs to replace the water dispenser in question with a new one and to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,100/- to the complainant towards the mental agony & harassment including the litigation expenses.  This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall also pay an additional amount of Rs.3,500/- to the complainant.
9.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19/12/2019                                                            sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER