Haryana

StateCommission

A/1358/2017

VANDANA MALHOTRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ONEPLUS INDIA AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

VARAUN CHAWLA

19 Dec 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No. 1358 of 2017

                                                Date of the Institution: 13.11.2017

                                                Date of Decision: 19.12.2019

 

Vandana Malhotra wife of Rajneesh Malhotra, resident of House No.935, Sector-17, Panchkula, Haryana. Mobile No.9814120415.

 

 

…..Complainant/Appellant

 

VERSUS

 

1.      Oneplus India (Registered Office), Flat No.7 & 10, Upper Ground Floor, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019, through it’s authorized signatory.

 

2.      Mobile Zone Care, Booth No.12, Sector-10, Panchkula, Haryana, through its authorized signatory.

 

3.      Amazon India, Registered Office Address: Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055, Karnataka, through its authorized signatory.

 

4.      M/s. Rocket Kommerce LLP, Varshini Apartments, Flat No.B3, N No.13, ESWARAN Kovil St., West Mambalam, Chennai-600033, Tamilnadu, India.

 

…..Opposite Parties/Respondents

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                  

                                     

Present:-    Shri Varun Chawla, counsel for the appellant.

                   Shri Neeraj Sahni, counsel for respondent No.3.

                   Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 already proceeded          ex parte.   

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J. (ORAL)

 

 

The complainant has filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 07.09.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula, whereby the complaint was allowed by directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of handset of `29,999/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum and `2,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2.      In the instant appeal, the complainant is seeking enhancement of the amount, which had been granted to her by the learned District Forum.  

3.      Learned counsel for the appellant states that as opposite party No.3 has since withdrawn the appeal, the complainant wants to withdraw her appeal as well.

4.      Learned counsel for respondent No.3 states that he has no objection if the appellant is permitted to withdraw the appeal.

5.      In view of the above, the appeal is hereby disposed of as having been withdrawn.

 

 

Announced 19.12.2019

(Ram Singh Chaudhary) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  D.R.