Delhi

East Delhi

CC/435/2016

MR ANUP - Complainant(s)

Versus

FUTURE MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

11 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 435/16

 

Mr. Anup

S/o Shri Sushil Kumar

R/o 28/93, Gali No. 14

Vishwas Nagar, Delhi – 110 032                                  ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

1. M/s. The Future Mobile

Main 60 Ft. Road

Vishwas Nagar, Delhi

 

2. M/s. Gionee

Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd.

E-9, Block No. B-1, G. Floor

Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate

Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044                                …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 23.08.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 01.02.2019

Judgement Passed on: 05.02.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Mr. Anup against M/s. Future Mobile (OP-1) and M/s. Gionee (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased one mobile phone make Gionee, Model S Plus from M/s. The Future Mobile (OP-1) on 20.03.2016 vide bill no. 1535 dated 20.03.2016 by paying an amount of Rs. 17,000/-.  The warranty of the mobile was from 20.03.2016 to 19.03.2017.

          It was stated that on 25.05.2016, the phone of the complainant was out of order having charging problem and blank screen problem.  The complainant immediately contacted customer care and was informed to go at their service centre.  The complainant went to service centre on 30.05.2016 and deposited his phone vide job sheet no. GC16500146037 and got it back on 02.06.2016 in working condition. 

          After 15 days, there was same problem in the mobile phone for which the complainant visited the service centre, but they demanded Rs. 8,000/- for repair of the phone by putting the part therein.  The complainant requested to OP to refund the cost of mobile phone or replace the phone with a new one.

          It was further stated that OPs did not perform their duties deliberately and intentionally. Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to replace his mobile phone with a new one or refund the cost of mobile phone of Rs. 17,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony.     

3.  
4.  

6.       We have have perused the material placed on record as none have appeared to argue.  From the documents placed on record, it is noticed that though the complainant have got exhibited warranty card and job sheet as  Ex.CW/1A and Ex.CW/B, but these documents have not been placed on record and have been withheld by the complainant.  When these documents which are material one to ascertain the deficiency on the part of OPs, his complaint cannot be said to be proved to fasten the deficiency on the part of M/s. Future Mobile (OP-1) and M/s. Gionee (OP-2).   That being so, no case of deficiency has been made out against M/s. Future Mobile (OP-1) and M/s. Gionee (OP-2).  Hence, his complaint deserves its 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