Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1024/2013

GAGAN GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BLACKBERRY - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 1024/13

 

Shri Gagan Gupta

Prop. M/s. Kumar Metals and Alloys

S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta

R/o 133, Tower 10, Supreme Enclave

Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi – 110 091                                          ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Blackberry Mobiles

Redington(India) Limited

95, Mount Road, Gulndy

Chennai - 600032

 

2. M/s. Mobile Store Ltd.

E-14, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar

Phase – I, Delhi – 110 091

 

3. M/s. Service City

Office No. 201, 2^nd Floor, Sagar Plaza

Laxmi Nagar Distt. Centre, Delhi – 110 092                                       ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 05.12.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 30.01.2017

Judgment Passed on: 31.01.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Gagan Gupta has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Blackberry Mobiles (OP-1), M/s. Mobile Store Ltd. (OP-2) and M/s. Service City (OP-3) for deficiency in services.

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a Blackberry mobile model no. 9360, black color, IMEI No. 358921043497986 on 31.12.2011 vide bill no. 8219/4985300 Store Code 1559 from OP-2 for an amount of Rs. 19,200.  It is stated that in the second month of February, 2012, the mobile was  creating trouble.  The complainant visited OP-3, who returned the mobile after repair.  In the month of April, 2012, the same problem was created and complainant submitted the mobile with OP-3 who told the complainant to collect the new hand set against his old set (New IMEI no. 358921043558423 given by Blackberry)

            In July 2012, the new set created same problem.  Complainant again visited OP-3 who told the complainant that they will change the mobile hand set in question, but OP-3 failed to change the mobile till today.  Hence, the complainant prayed for refund the cost of mobile of Rs. 19,200/-; Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency of service on the part of OP, Rs. 10,000/- compensation for mental torture, harassment and damages and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.         Notice of the complaint was served upon OPs, but they failed to file written statement. 

4.         In support of its case, the complainant has not examined himself on affidavit.  We have perused the material placed on record as none appeared to argue.  The fact that the complainant have not examined himself on affidavit and have not placed anything on record to substantiate his allegations, his complaint cannot be said to be proved.    Thus, in the absence of any evidence on behalf of the complainant, it cannot be said that the complainant has succeeded in proving any deficiency on the part of OP.  Therefore, his complaint deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.         

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President