Haryana

Panchkula

CC/259/2021

PRANAY GOEL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

G- MOBILE DEVICES PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON.

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA.

                                                  

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	259 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	08.06.2021
Date of Decision	:	28.02.2022

 

Pranay Goel, resident of House No.779, Sector-21, Panchkula(Haryana)

                                                                                                                                                                             ….Complainant

Versus

1.     G.Mobile Devices Private Limited, Unit No.B301, Third Floor,      Tower B, Plot No.7, Sector-142, Noida, Uttar Pradesh (Pin Code-    201301).

2.     Infinix Authorised Service Centre, DSS 305, Ground Floor, Sector-      20, Panchkula.

3.     Savan Retailers Private Limited, 11/29, Rajinder Nagar, New     Delhi, Central Delhi(Pin Code-110060)                                                               

                                                                       ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        OPs No.1 to 3 already ex-parte vide order dated   25.08.2021.

 

                                        ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant purchased an Infinix Smart 4 Plus Mobile Phone with IMEI/Serial No.355832118165197 on 28.07.2020. The said mobile started giving problem within the first 4 months of purchase for which the complaint was made on 09.12.2020 which was acknowledged by OP No.2. But the issue could not be resolved completely as the product continued to suffer from boot failure for which another complaint was made to OP No.2 and the mobile phone was given to OP No.2 on 29.12.2020. The complainant received the mobile phone back from service centre on 19.01.2021 with an assurance that all issues have been resolved.  Within a day of receipt of mobile another set of issue was faced as the proximity sensor of mobile phone started malfunctioning. Therefore, again the mobile phone was submitted to OP No.2 on 23.01.2021 but the OP No.2 could not repair it. Again on 29.01.2021 the complainant went to service centre for the same issue and now OP No.2 denied the service. Further, a complaint dated 29.01.2021 was sent by complainant to OP No.2 mentioning therein so many defects in Infinix Mobile Phone but there was no response from the OPs.  Being aggrieved by the attitude of Ops, the complainant has served a legal notice to the Ops with speed post on 09.03.2021 but OPs did not sent any reply of the same. Due to act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs No.1 to 3 through registered post which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OPs No.1 to 3; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Ops No.1 to 3 they were proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 25.08.2021.

3.             The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.             We have heard the complainant and gone through the entire record available on file, minutely and carefully.

5.             Evidently, the complainant purchased a mobile set, namely, Infinix Smart 4 Plus with IMEI/Serial No.355832118165197 vide invoice dated 28.07.2020 amounting to Rs.7,999/- from OP No.3. Allegedly, the said phone became defective within the warranty period and complainant approached the OP No.2 for removal of the defects in the mobile set but the problem could not be resolved fully and again mobile set was handed over to OP No.2 on 29.12.2020 as is evident from Annexure C-2. As per Annexure C-3 the complainant received the hand set after 21 days from OP No.2 but the mobile again became defective on account of defects pertaining to cameras infrared sensor as is evident from Annexure C-4. Allegedly the OP No.2 failed to rectify the defects in the mobile set which were occurring again and again in its functioning and as such the complainant asked the OP No.2 vide its letter dated 29.01.2021 either to rectify the defects in the mobile set or to refund the price of the mobile set amounting to Rs.7,999/-. Finding no response in the matter, the complainant sent the legal notice (Annexure C-6) through his counsel, namely, Ms. Meenakshi Gupta, to OPs No.1 & 2 asking for the refund of the price of the mobile set as they had failed to rectify the defects in the mobile set during the warranty period. Thereafter, another legal notice(Annexure C-7) was sent to OPs No.1 & 2 by the complainant making the similar request. However, the OPs neither sent any reply to the aforementioned letter followed by the legal notices nor redressed the grievances of the complainant.

6.             The OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The non-appearance of the OPs despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             On the other hand, the version of the complainant is fully supported and corroborated by his affidavit Annexure C-A, along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-7.

8.             In view of the fact that the OPs neither responded to the notice nor have they opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OPs had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been fully detailed in the complaint, as also in the affidavit in support thereof. Thus, we hold that OPs No.1 & 2 are liable for the deficiency and unfair trade practice; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief. The present complaint is dismissed qua OP No.3.

9.             As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 & 2:-

1. To refund a sum of Rs.7,999/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the complainant w.e.f. the date of filing of this complaint till realization subject to submission of the mobile set to OP No.2.
2. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

9.             The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 Announced on: 28.02.2022

 

 

          Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini             Satpal

                  Member                  Member                          President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini

                                               Member