Maharashtra

DCF, South Mumbai

CC/22/2024

SANJAY NIRMAL CHAKRABORTY - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARAG AMBRE ASM VIVO AUTHORISED SERVICE CENTER - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SOUTH MUMBAI
Puravatha Bhavan, 1st Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital,
Parel, Mumbai-400 012
 
Complaint Case No. CC/22/2024
( Date of Filing : 11 Jan 2024 )
 
1. SANJAY NIRMAL CHAKRABORTY
INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD, 2ND FLOOR, NEW ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, D N ROAD, CENTRAL RAILWAY, CSMT, MUMBAI.
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. PARAG AMBRE ASM VIVO AUTHORISED SERVICE CENTER
VIVO AUTHORISED SERVICE CENTER, OFFICE NO 3, 3RD FLOOR, MALHOTRA HOUSE OPP GPO, FORT, MUMBAI
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. PRADEEP G. KADU, Incharge PRESIDENT
  HONBLE SMT. SHEETAL A. PETKAR MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 05 Jun 2024
Final Order / Judgement

1.Heard argument of complainant on admission, perused documents filed on record.

2.  The complainant had purchased Vivo X 60 Pro Plus mobile phone on 20/7/2016 from Amazon E-Commerce Website for Rs.69,990/-.

3. The issue with regard to burn lines on the display arose only after an official System update was installed on the phone during the first week of October 2023 and complainant visited to O.P. on 10/10/2023.

4. It is observed that the OP suggested to complainant to replace the LED, display screen and pay Rs.12,750/- but complainant was not agreed, he was against the replacement of LED screen. Therefore, the complainant has not paid amount for services of opposite party, which shows that he refused to avail services of opposite party. From the documents on record, it shows that the mobile was out of warranty, no any transaction between complainant and OP done, no consideration promised or paid or not taken services from OP.  Therefore, no question of deficiency arise. Relation between complainant and OP not arise as ‘Consumer’ and ‘Service provider’.

5.  From the abovesaid ground, this complaint deserves to be rejected, hence not admitted.

ORDER

  1. Consumer complaint no.CC/22/2024 is rejected.
  2. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. PRADEEP G. KADU, Incharge]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ HONBLE SMT. SHEETAL A. PETKAR]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.