Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/83/2018

Ashok Kanwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s One Plus Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Harsha Nagra

23 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	83 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	05.02.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	23.02.2018

 

 

 

 

Ashok Kanwal s/o Sh. Shri Ramji Lal, resident of H.No.1080, Phase-2, Ramdarbar, Chandigarh.        

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  M/s One Plus Pvt. Ltd., Kabra Execlsior, #6A, 7^th Main 1^st Block Koramagala Bangalore City 560034 through its Owner/Authorised Person/Representative.

2]  M/s Swastik Computers, SCO NO.98-100, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Owner/Authorised Person/Representative.

3]  M/s Amazon Pvt. Ltd., Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr.Raj Kumar, Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore 560055, Karnataka, India, through its Owner/Authorised Person/Representative.

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.Harsha Nagra, Adv. for the complainant.

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The complainant has stated to have got the mobile phone Model OnePlus 3T (Gunmetal 6GB RAM + 128GB memory) by way of Gift from his relative.  It is stated that the said mobile phone is suffering from several defects and not working properly after its purchase since July, 2017.  It is also stated that the said mobile phone was purchased on 8.4.2017 for an amount of Rs.34,999/- (Ann.C-1).

 

2]       As per the Invoice dated 8.4.2017 (Annexure C-1), the mobile phone in question was purchased by Sh.Abhishek Chaudhary, but he has not been impleaded as a co-complainant in this complaint.

         As per Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, the “Consumer” means:

“any person, who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person….”

 

3]       The complainant neither has impleaded Abhishek Chaudhary, the actual buyer of the mobile phone in question, nor has brought on record his affidavit in support of gift of the said mobile phone to him or any permission/approval issued by him in favour of the complainant for using that mobile phone, which is essential for the purpose of admissibility of the complaint as envisaged under the provisions of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  As such, the present complaint is not tenable and hence dismissed in limine.  However, the complainant shall be at liberty to file fresh complaint after complying with the provisions of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the complainant, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

23^rd February, 2018                                                      

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER