Bangalore District Commission Holds Cashify Liable For Selling Defective Mobile Phone, Failing To Honour Warranty Terms

The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Vijaykumar M Pawale (President), V Anuradha (Member) and Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held Cashify liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for selling a defective mobile phone and failing to either replace it or refund the amount despite the phone being under warranty. Brief Facts: The Complainant purchased a refurbished Samsung Galaxy Z Flip-4 mobile phone from Cashify for Rs. 60,614.05/-. At the time of purchase, Cashify provided a six-month warranty and stated that it would replace the device if any problems arose and resolve any minor issues within 24 hours. Within three months of using the device, the Complainant experienced issues with the phone as it would not open properly. The Complainant visited the Cashify showroom to address the problem. Cashify picked up the device, obtained the Complainant's signature on a customer pick-up form, and acknowledged the issue. However, Cashify only temporarily resolved the problem and returned the defective mobile to the Complainant. Subsequently, the Complainant visited the Cashify showroom again for further rectification of the device issue and handed over the phone. Cashify assured the Complainant that if it failed to resolve the issue, it would replace the device with the same model. Despite these assurances, the device remained with Cashify without resolution or replacement. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore Urban (“District Commission”) against Cashify. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission noted that Cashify failed to resolve the issues either by replacing the mobile phone or refunding the amount paid by the Complainant. It noted that the defective mobile phone, which was delivered by Cashify, did not fulfil its intended purpose. Therefore, the District Commission held Cashify liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Consequently, the District Commission held that the Complainant was entitled to either a replacement of the existing device with a Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4 or a refund of Rs. 60,615/-. Therefore, the District Commission directed Cashify to either replace the existing device with another phone or refund Rs. 60,615/- to the Complainant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as compensation until realization. Further, Cashify was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant. Case Title: Mr Deepak P vs M/s. Cashify Case No.: CC/343/2023 Advocate for the Complainant: Sri Jai M. Patil Advocate for the Opposite Party: None (ex-parte) Date of Pronouncement: 22.07.2024

Bangalore District Commission Holds Cashify Liable For Selling Defective Mobile Phone, Failing To Honour Warranty Terms

Smita Singh

Tags