Delhi

East Delhi

CC/127/2015

SANJEEV - Complainant(s)

Versus

PALADIN SYSTEM - Opp.Party(s)

06 Feb 2017

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. 127/15

 

Shri Sanjeev Khanna

S/o Shri Sardari Lal Khanna

R/o 18/59, Geeta Colony

Delhi – 110 031                                                                              ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Paladin Systems Private Ltd.

Collection Point at

West End Mall, 114, 2^nd Floor

New Delhi – 110 058

 

2. Baljeet Telecom

Shop No. 7 & 8

1^st Floor, Main Road

Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 110 031                                                  ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 20.04.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 06.02.2017

Judgment Passed on: 07.02.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Sanjeev Khanna against           M/s. Paladin Systems Pvt. Ltd.(OP-1) and Baljeet Telecom (OP-2), praying for refund of cost of mobile of Rs. 13,500/-, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and            Rs. 21,000/- cost of litigation. 

2.        Facts in brief are that the complainant purchased HTC T329W for Rs. 13,500/- on 09.12.2013 from Baljeet Telecom (OP-2), which was insured by M/s. Paladin Systems Pvt. Ltd.(OP-1).  The mobile was insured for a period of two years under the Cashless Protection Plan for which an amount of Rs. 1,350/- was paid on 09.12.2013.   On 20.01.2015, the said mobile was dead and the complainant immediately contacted OP-1 to replace/repair the same, but they delayed the matter on one pretext or the other.  On 04.12.2015, the complainant repaired the said mobile phone from Smart Solutions.  When the complainant visited the service centre of OP-1, then he was told that OP-2 has not paid the premium amount of the insurance policy.  Thereafter, the complainant approached OP-2 and apprised the said facts to him then OP-2 told the complainant that OP-1 did not provide the facility to its customers.  Thus, it has been stated that complainant has been harassed on account of delayed tactics of OP-1 and OP-2.  Hence, he has claimed an amount of Rs. 13,500/- as value of the said mobile, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 21,000/- cost of litigation.

3.        Notice of the complaint was given to both parties.  They were served, but they did not put the appearance.  Thus, they were proceeded ex-parte. 

4.        In support of its complaint, the complainant has not filed any evidence on record.  We have perused the material placed on record.  In the absence of any evidence coupled with the documents, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove its complaint.  That being so, the complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.

            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