VIKAS filed a consumer case on 06 Feb 2017 against PALADIN SYSTEM in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/120/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 06 Mar 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 120/15
Shri Vikas Jain
S/o Shri Babu Ram Jain
R/o 10944/5, Mandir Road
Dori Walan, Karol Bagh
New Delhi – 110 005 ….Complainant
Vs.
Collection Point at
West End Mall, 114, 2nd Floor
New Delhi – 110 058
Shop No. 7 & 8
1st 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 Vikas Jain against M/s. Paladin Systems Pvt. Ltd.(OP-1) and Baljeet Telecom (OP-2), praying for refund of cost of mobile of Rs. 32,500/-, 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 Sony C6902 Xperia Z1 for Rs. 32,500/- on 24.07.2014 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. 3,250/- was paid on 24.07.2014. The display of said mobile was broken and the complainant immediately contacted OP-1 to replace/repair the same, but they delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. On 01.12.2015, 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. 32,500/- 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
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.