STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.158 of 2021

Date of institution : 23.04.2021

Date of decision : 06.12.2022

Unicorn Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 1^st Floor Mittal Building, Bhupindra

Road, near Columbia Asia Hospital, Patiala, through its Managing

Director-147001, now through Paras Mehra, Authorized Person,

Unicorn.

….Appellant/Opposite Party No.3

Versus

1. Minkel Bansal S/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Bansal, R/o H.No.542,

Street No.3, Mehal Mubarak Colony, Sangrur.

….Respondent/Complainant

2. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, Eros Corporate

Center, Nehru Palace, New Delhi-110019, through its M.D.

3. Green Mobiles, Anjaneya Infrastructure Projects No.38 & 39,

Soukya Road, Kacherakanahalli, Haskote Taluka, Bangalore

Rural, Bangalore--147001, through its Managing Director.

.....Respondents/Opposite Parties. No.1 & 2

First Appeal under Section 41 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the

order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the

District

Consumer

Disputes

Redressal

Commission, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgment?

Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported

in the Digest?

Yes/No

Present:-

For the appellant

: Sh. Gaurav Verma, Advocate

For respondents No.1 & 2 : None

For respondent No.3

: None.

First Appeal No.158 of 2021

2

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT

Appellant/opposite party No.3 has filed the present appeal

under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to challenge

the impugned order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sangrur (in short, “the

District Commission”), whereby the complaint filed by respondent

No.1/complainant namely Minkel Bansal was allowed and the opposite

parties were directed to replace the mobile set in dispute with the new

one by issuing further directions to the complainant to hand over the

mobile set along with accessories to the opposite parties at the time of

replacement of the mobile set. The order passed by the District

Commission was ordered to be complied with within a period of 60

days from the date of receipt of the certified copy thereof.

2.

It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the

parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District

Commission.

3.

Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by respondent

No.1/complainant in the complaint filed before the District Commission

are that he booked/purchased an Iphone-7 from opposite party No.1

on 09.12.2017. However, the amount of ₹39,999/- was paid to

opposite party No.2. The opposite parties gave one year warranty on

the said phone. It was further mentioned in the complaint that in the

month of August, 2018, the mobile set started giving problems of

First Appeal No.158 of 2021

3

hanging, touch, overheating etc. The complainant approached the

opposite parties and opposite party No.3 issued an estimate of repair

to the tune of ₹29,500/- whereas the phone was within the warranty

period. Stating to be a case of ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of

the opposite parties, the complaint was filed with the prayer to issue

directions to the opposite parties to refund the price amount of the

mobile set along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the

date of payment till its realization and also to pay compensation of

₹50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of ₹5,500/-.

4.

Said complaint was contested by opposite parties No.1 & 3

by filing separate replies, wherein certain preliminary objections were

raised. All allegations made in the complaint were specifically denied

and dismissal of the complaint was prayed. Opposite party No.2 had

not appeared before the District Commission despite service

Click Here to Read the rest of this document