Delhi

East Delhi

CC/909/2014

PANKAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAA COMMUNICATION - Opp.Party(s)

10 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC No.909/2014:

In the matter of:        

Sh. Pankaj Mehta

Sachkhand Trading Co.,

1/177, 1^st Floor, Punja Sharif,

Kashmere Gate, GaliSheraWali,

Delhi – 110 006

               Complainant

Vs

1. The Manager

MaaCommunictaions,

12, Shankar Vihar,

New NirmanVihar Metro Station,

Opp. Metro Pillar No. 72,

Main Vikas Marg,

Delhi – 110 092

 

 

2. The Managing Director

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.

S.P. Info City,

Industrial Plot No.243,

UdyogVihar, Phase – I,

Dundhera, Gurgaon,

     Haryana – 122 016

Respondents

 

Date of Admission -16/10/2014

                                                                           Date of Order          -21/09/2015

 

ORDER

 

Poonam Malhotra, Member:

 

The present complaint has been filed with the allegations that on 13/10/2013 the complainant purchased a Nokia 520 mobile handset with IMEI No.358352057888615 and Nokia 625 Mobile Handset with IMEI No.356689055573968 for Rs.9,000/- and Rs.16,000/- respectively.  It is alleged that both the handsets developed varied problems viz., network problem, hanging problem, opening of files automatically, auto switch off, etc. The said two handsets were submitted to the Respondent No.I but on receipt of the same after alleged repairs they were found to be suffering from the same problems and they were resubmitted for repairs to Respondent No.I. It is alleged that both the handsets have not been handed over to him after due repairs and are still with the Respondent No.I.  Several reminders for the redressal of the grievance to the respondents were of no consequence.  The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.9,000/- and Rs.16,000/-, the cost of both the handsets, Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony & Rs.1,000/- as the cost of this litigation and an apology from the respondents for the inconvenience caused to the complainant.

In response to the notices issued to the respondents none put up appearance on behalf of Respondent No.I.   Only Respondent No.II put up appearance but no written statement filed by it and case proceeded exparte against it. 

Evidence by way of affidavit not filed by the complainant in support of his case.

Heard and perused the record.

The present complaint is with regard to two mobile handsets – one is Nokia 520 mobile handset with IMEI No.358352057888615 and the other is Nokia 625 Mobile Handset with IMEI No.356689055573968.  The former (i.e., Nokia 520) mobile handset with IMEI No.358352057888615 has been purchased by some Renuka Mehta  vide Retail Invoice with Serial No.48492 Book No.970 dated 13/10/2013 for Rs.9,000/- from M/s. Seema Telecom, Delhi and latter(i.e., Nokia 625)mobile handset with IMEI No.356689055573968 has been purchased by the complainant, Sh. Pankaj Mehta, vide Retail Invoice with Serial No.48493 Book No.970 dated 13/10/2013 for Rs.16,000/- from M/s. Seema Telecom, Delhi  as is evident from the copies of the retail invoices filed on record.  The only Service Jobsheet dated 19/07/2014 placed on record is with regard to the mobile handset purchased by Renuka Mehta and the same has been issued in her name. The complainant, Sh.Pankaj Mehta, is, thus, not a consumer with regard to the mobile phone purchased by Renuka Mehta.  As such the part of the complaint limited to the extent of the mobile phone Nokia 520 is not maintainable under the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Coming to the other component of the complaint with regard to the mobile handset Nokia 625 with IMEI No.356689055573968purchased by Sh.Pankaj Mehta, it is pertinent to mention here that as per the provisions contained in Section 13 of the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on admission of a complaint it is proceeded as per the provisions contained in the said Act of 1986 and decided on the basis of evidence filed by the parties on affidavit.  Since the present case has been proceeded exparte against the respondents and the complainant has not filed his affidavit in evidence to reaffirm on oath the allegations made by him with regard to the alleged defects in the mobile handset Nokia 625against the respondents in his complaint, it is, thus, not maintainable being hit bySection 13 of the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present complaint,the present complaint is dismissed accordingly.

 

Copy of the order to be sent to all the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

   (Subhash Gupta)                                         (Poonam Malhotra)                          (N.A. Zaidi)

          Member                                                                      Member                                     President