Haryana

StateCommission

A/248/2016

AMARJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

CELL GURU - Opp.Party(s)

TUSHAR GAUTAM

14 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.248 of 2016

Date of the Institution: 21.03.2016

Date of Decision: 14.07.2016

 

Amarjit Singh S/o Sh.Shiv Dayal, R/o Village Bihta,Tehsil Barara, Distt.Ambala.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Cell guru, Shop No.5438, Cross Road No.4, Opposite Nigar Cinema, Ambala Cantt through its authorized signatory.
2. Cell Point Intex (authorized centre) near Govt. College, A Ambala Cantt through its authorized signatory.
3. Intex Aqua Style Pro D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-11020, through its Manager/authorized Signatory.

 

                                                                             .….Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Tushar Gautam, Advocate for the appellant.

 

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased telephone from opposite party (O.P.) No.1 (authorized dealer of O.P.No.3) against payment of Rs.6500/- as detailed in para No.1 of the complaint.

2.      Just after one month telephone started giving problem of charging, 3G net service etc.  These fact were brought to notice of O.P.No.1 and he asked to get it checked from O.P.No.2.  O.P.No.2 told that defect was removed but actually he did not check the set.  He again complained about the problem, but, they refused to remove the same. So they be directed to refund the amount paid by him and pay compensation for mental harassment etc.

3.      After hearing counsel for the complainant, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala ( In short ‘District Forum’) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 24.02.2016 on the ground that complainant failed to prove any defect.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Complainant has failed to show that telephone was having any problem. Ex.C-1, referred in the impugned order, is an invoice showing purchase of telephone.  There is no document or report on the file showing that telephone developed any type of problem. On the basis of bald statement of the complainant it cannot be presumed that this piece was defective.  Learned District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned order. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

July 14th, 2016

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.