TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Mobile store directed to refund money for misleading resident

Asked to pay Rs2,500 compensation for harassment

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Advertisement

Chandigarh, August 25

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has directed a mobile store to return Rs13,999, the amount of a cellphone, to a city resident.

Besides, the court also directed the mobile store to pay Rs2,500 as compensation for causing harassment and Rs5,000 as litigation expenses to the customer.

Advertisement

Vijay Pal, a resident of Raipur Khurd, filed a complaint stating that he purchased a Redmi Note 7 Pro mobile phone vide invoice dated July 6, 2019 for Rs13,999 having a one-year warranty from M/s AD’s Mobile Arcade, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

He alleged that the store sold the handset with an assurance that it was a 4G-enabled mobile phone with dual SIM card facility. When the complainant inserted a JIO SIM card in the cellphone, he found that it was not working.

He alleged that the opposite parties misled him by selling the handset with an assurance that it was a 4G-enabled cellphone. However, 4G SIM was not working in it.

The complainant sought relief alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on part of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The court, in its order, said despite notices, representatives from M/s AD’s Mobile, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, and M/s Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited failed to appear before the court. Therefore, the opposite parties were directed to return the cost of the mobile phone and pay compensation for harassment to the complainant.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement