Delhi

East Delhi

CC/958/2015

VIPIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

GAUTAM TELECOM - Opp.Party(s)

01 May 2018

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.958/15

Shri VIPIN GUPTA

S/O SHRI KAILASH CHAND GUPTA,

R/O H.NO. 7-B/36-A, ABHINAMYU GALI

NEW VISHWAS NAGAR,

SHAHDARA, DELHI-110032….Complainant

•  

1. M/S GAUTAM TELECOM

450-B/3C, SHALIMAR PARK,

BHOLA NATH NAGAR, SHAHDARA,

1.  

 

2. M/S ZTE TELECOM PVT. LTD.,
8.  

MUNICIPAL, NO. 65-5-25

LUKSAR HOSUR ROAD,

ADSUGODI BANGALORE-560029                                                           ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 19.12.2015

Judgment Reserved for: 01.05.2018

Judgment Passed on: 05.05.2018

CORUM:

Shri SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY:  HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by Shri Vipin Gupta, against M/S Gautam Telecom (OP-1) and M/S ZTE Telecom Pvt. Ltd., (OP-2), with the allegations of deficiency in services.
2. The facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased one Mobile handset from OP-1 on 30.01.2015 vide invoice No. 6775 for Rs.3800/-, bearing No. ZTE-N799D, Es. No.A000004E760B41 which was under one year warranty. On 01.09.2015, there was problem in the handset for which complainant visited Sai Service Centre on 02.05.2015 and Job sheet no. DL403SC1998 was issued and the handset was returned on 04.10.2015. Again, after 15 days the handset was dead for which the complainant visited the service centre for repair where he was refused service, stating that the handset was out of warranty. Despite several complaints to the customer care department, the grievance of the complainant was not addressed. Hence, the present complaint seeking direction to OP to give new Mobile handset, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment along with Rs.10,000/-  as litigation charges.

The complainant has annexed retail invoice dated 03.06.2015, job sheet dated 02.09.2015, E mail dated 31.10.2015 with the complaint.

3. Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs, but neither any reply was filed nor anyone appeared on their behalf, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.
4. Complainant filed his ex-parte evidence where he has reiterated the contents of the complaint.
5. We have heard the submission on behalf of the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. No deficiency in service can be attributed to OP-1 as they are the mere retailers. As far as deficiency in service with regard to OP-2, the manufacturer is concerned, the complainant has alleged that there was problem in the handset with 7 months of purchase, but has failed to place on record to support his averments that the handset was under warranty. If we have a look at the job sheet, that too reflects that the handset was out of warranty. It is settled principle of law that the complainant has to prove his case, thus in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, it deserves dismissal being devoid of merit. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed without order to cost.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

 

DR P.N.TIWARI                                                                               HARPREET KAUR CHARYA                              

    MEMBER                                                                                                     MEMBER      

 

 

SUKHDEV SINGH

PRESIDENT