Delhi

East Delhi

CC/755/2014

MAYANK GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

INTEX - Opp.Party(s)

25 Nov 2016

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. 755/14

 

Shri Mayank Gupta

S/o Shri Mohan Lal Gupta

R/o 747, Halkara Kuan, Gali No. 6

Jwala Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032                                ….Complainant

Vs.

1. M.S. Communication

229/96B, Railway Colony

Gali No. 2, Mandawali, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Shree Communication

C-4/8, 1^st Floor, Opp. C-3 Market,

Yamuna Vihar, Delhi – 110 053

 

3. INTEX Technologies India Ltd.

D-18/2, Okhla Ind. Area Phase – II

New Delhi – 110 020                                                                      ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 25.08.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 25.11.2016

Judgment Passed on: 16.12.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Mayank Gupta against M.S. communication, the retailer (OP-1), Shree Communication (OP-2) and Intex Technologies India Ltd., the manufacturer (OP-3) under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, praying for directions to OP to refund the cost of the handset i.e. Rs. 3,600/-, Rs. 30,000/- compensation on account of mental harassment and agony and Rs. 15,000/- as cost of litigation.    

2.        The facts in brief are that on 22.09.2013 (though it is wrongly mentioned as 22.09.2014 in the complaint), the complainant had purchased one Intex mobile, model no. Cloud X2 for Rs. 3,600/- vide bill no. 028 from OP-1.  Problems like heating and dual network connectivity were faced by the complainant right from the day of purchase, for which he visited the authorized service centre i.e. OP-2, where he was assured that his repaired handset would be handed over to him within 7 days.  But again on 13.08.2014, he approached OP-2 with the same problems mentioned above, for which job sheet no. 4081310030031001 was issued with assurance that the repaired handset shall be delivered within 2 days.  Despite several visits, OP-2 did not handover the handset to the complainant.  Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has alleged deficiency in services and unfair trade practices.

Job sheet dated 13.08.2014, invoice dated 22.09.2013 for            Rs. 3,600/- are annexed with the complaint.

3.        All OPs were served with the notice of the complaint.  OP-2 and OP-3 filed their joint written statement and took the plea that the complainant had given his handset for repairs after 11 months of purchase, thus, there was no defect in the handset.  All the averments of the complaint were denied.

4.        Rejoinder was filed by the complainant, wherein it was stated that the handset was still under warranty and rest of the contents of the WS were denied.

5.        The complainant was directed to file evidence, however, despite opportunity, the complainant has failed to comply with the directions of this Forum.  Further, Ld. Counsel for OP had offered to get the handset repaired and hand it over to the complainant, which was not accepted by the complainant. 

            As the complainant has not filed any evidence, the contents of the complaint have not be proved by him.  Therefore, the present 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