View 231 Cases Against Infinity
KAILASH CHADRA filed a consumer case on 28 Apr 2017 against INFINITY RETAIL LTD. in the West Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/16/610 and the judgment uploaded on 02 May 2017.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058
Date of institution: 14.09.2016
Complaint Case. No. 610/16 Date of order: 28.04.2017
IN MATTER OF
Kailash Chandra S/o.Mr.Govind Ram, A-1, 420, MadhuVIhar, New Delhi-110059. Complainant
VERSUS
1. Infiniti Retail Ltd., Pusa Road,Near Karol Bagh Metro Station, New Delhi. Opposite Party no.1
2. Care Zone, A-16, 1st Floor, Tagore Market, Opposite Metro Pillar No.333, Near Domin’s&Azza Hut,Kirti Nagar, Delhi-110015.
Opposite Party no.2
3. Samsung India Electronics Limited, 7th Floor, IFCI Tower-61, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. Opposite Party no.3
ORDER
R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT
Briefly case of Kailash Chandra complainant named above as stated is that on 28.05.16 he purchased one mobile make and model Samsung Galaxy A8 A800F Black, IMEI No.355015071143241”manufactured by Samsung India Electronics Limited hereinafter referred as the oppositeparty no.3 for sale consideration of Rs.25,340/-. On 25.07.16 he saw ink spot on screen of the mobile. On 26.07.16 he deposited the mobile with the opposite party no.2 for repair. The employee of the opposite party no.2 told the complainant that there is tempering in the mobile and hewill have to spent Rs.7,000/- to 8,000/ on repair. The mobile is within warranty. Therefore, he is entitled for repair of mobile without charges. Butthe opposite parties have refused to repair the mobile without charges. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to replace the mobile with a new mobile of same make and model and pay compensation for mental and physical sufferings.
Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. But despite service none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties.Therefore, the opposite parties were proceededagainst exparte.
When ShriKailash Chandra complainant was asked to lead evidence, he tendered his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. He also relied upon invoice dated 28.05.16 and estimate cum job sheet dated 26.07.16. From perusal of the invoice and job sheet cum estimate, it reveals that the complainant purchasedmobile handset make and model Samsung Galaxy A8 A800F Black, IMEI No.355015071143241” manufactured by Samsung India Electronics Limited. He deliveredmobilehandset Model SM-A9001ZKIND, bearing IMEI No.355015071143241” to the opposite party no.2 on 26.07.17 for repairs. The mobile having Model SM-A9001ZKIND, bearing IMEI No.355015071143241” was also out of warranty on account of physical damage. We have heard the complainant and have gone through the record carefully and thoroughly.
It is for the complainant to prove that the mobile had any fault. It is also for him to prove that he gave the purchased mobile to the opposite party no.2 for repairs. But there is nothing on the record to show that the purchased mobile had fault and was delivered to opposite party no.2 for repairs. Whereas from the job sheet cum estimate letter it reveals that even the mobile delivered to the opposite party no.2 for repairs was physically damaged and out of warranty. Therefore there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency inservice on the part of the opposite party.
Resultantly, there is no merit in the complaint. Hence dismissed.
Order pronounced on : 28.04.2017
(PUNEET LAMBA) ( R.S. BAGRI )
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.