Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/407

SUNIL ARORA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARKRISHAN GALLERY - Opp.Party(s)

02 Sep 2015

ORDER

 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution           : 24.6.15

 

Case. No.DF-III/407/2015/                                                                          Date of order       : 28.5.16

In the matter of :-

Sunil Arora,

WZ-406, M/2A, Janak Park,

Street No.3, Hari Nagar,

New Delhi-110064                                                                                                Complainant

Vs.

Harikishan Gallery & Service

(HTC Service Centre),

4G 26, Suneja Tower-2,

Distt. Centre, Janak Puri,

New Delhi-110058                                                                                    Opposite Party No.1

 

HTC India Pvt. Ltd.,

G4, BPTP Park Centre,

Sector-30, Near NH-8,

Gurgaon, Haryana                                                                                     Opposite Party No.2

 

(R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT)

O R D E R     

            The brief facts  of the present complaint as stated are that Sh. Sunil Arora, complainant purchased one mobile handset HTC Desire 816 Dual Sim Model IMEI No MFID A 10000371F999A on 26.6.14 for sale consideration of Rs.24,500/- vide invoice No. 29277 dated 26.6.14.  But the switch/button of the mobile handset  started giving trouble within one month of the purchase.  He made complaint to the  seller.   Who advised the complainant to get the mobile

 

 

-2-

handset  checked from service centre.   The complainant visited the opposite party No.1.   They  asked  the  complainant to drop the mobile handset for repairs.  

 

            The complainant after 15 days was informed by opposite party No.1 to collect the mobile handset.  The complainant visited the opposite party No.1 to collect the mobile handset and on checking found that the  camera of the mobile handset was not working properly.    The complainant again got the mobile handset checked from engineer of the opposite party No.1. Who advised to drop the mobile handset with them.   But the complainant did not agree for the same and received back the mobile handset.    Hence, the present complaint  for direction to the opposite parties to get the mobile replaced and pay compensation of Rs. 60,000/- for mental pain, agony and suffering.

 

                        Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties.   They appeared  but failed to file reply to the complaint despite availing many opportunities. Lastly on 6.1.15 none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties.  Therefore, they were proceeded  ex-parte.  

 

                        When the complainant was asked to lead evidence in support of his claim.   He filed affidavit dated 10.3.16 narrating the facts of the complaint.    The complainant in support of his version also relied upon  photocopy of the invoice No . 29277 dated 26.6.14 and e-mails dated  19.5.15.

 

-3-

                        From the perusal of the invoice and e-mails, it reveals that the complainant purchased the mobile handset from opposite party No.2 for a sum of Rs. 24500/- on 26.6.14 vide invoice No . 29277 dated 26.6.14.

 

                        We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the complaint, invoice and e-mail dated 19.5.15 carefully and thoroughly.

 

                        The version of the complainant, invoice No.29277 dated 26.6.14 and e-mail  have remained un-rebutted and unchallenged.   Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve  the same.

           

                        From the un-rebutted and un-challenged version of the  complaint, it is proved that the complainant purchased the mobile handset on 26.6.14 of opposite party No.2 for sale consideration of Rs. 24,500/-.   He delivered the mobile handset to opposite party No.1.   The opposite party No.1 after repairs returned the mobile handset to the complainant.    There is nothing on the record to prove that once the mobile handset was repaired by opposite party No.1 and delivered to the complainant by opposite party No.1,     the mobile handset again developed any fault/error.   There is also nothing to prove that the mobile handset was again given by the complainant to opposite party No.1 for repairs. The mobile handset is with the complainant.    The affidavit of the complainant only is not sufficient to prove that the mobile handset is faulty, requires any repairs and complainant is entitled for any amount.

-4-

                        Hence, the complainant is failed to prove that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the any opposite parties.    Therefore, there is no merit of the complaint and the same fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

Order pronounced on   :

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• File be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                               (URMILA GUPTA)                   ( R.S.  BAGRI )

  MEMBER                                            MEMBER                               PRESIDENT