Uttar Pradesh

Aligarh

CC/176/2016

SUNIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROHIT RELA RB TRADERS - Opp.Party(s)

30 Oct 2023

ORDER

न्यायालय जिला उपभोक्ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग
अलीगढ
 
Complaint Case No. CC/176/2016
( Date of Filing : 26 Oct 2016 )
 
1. SUNIL KUMAR
S/O SRI SONPAL SINGH R/O SARAIGARHI PIPALWALI BAND GALI SASNI GATE ALIGARH
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. ROHIT RELA RB TRADERS
MO JAIGANJ TEH KOIL ALIGARH
2. MANAGER GIONEE INDIA
E9 BLOCKNO B1 GROUND FLOOR MOHANNAGAR COORPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BADARPUR MATHURA ROAD NEW DELHI
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. HASNAIN QURESHI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. ALOK UPADHYAYA MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. PURNIMA SINGH RAJPOOT MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 30 Oct 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Case No. 176/2016   

      IN THE MATTER OF

           Sunil Kumar S/o Sri Son Pal Singh R/o Sarai Garhi Pipal wali Band Gali Sasni Gate, Aligarh          

                                           V/s

  1. Rohit Kela R.B. Traders Pathan Mohalla Jai Ganj Tehsil Koil,Aligarh  
  2. Head Office Jaina India Pvt.Ltd. D170 Okhala Indstrial Area Fem1 New Delhi 110020

            

  CORAM

              Present:

  1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
  2. Shri Alok Upadhyaya, Member
  3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

             PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

  1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  payment of price of the mobile Rs.14700/ and compensation for harassment Rs.20000/.

 

  1. Complainant stated that he had purchased a mobile IMEI no. 867645023613239 on 17.9.2015 from Op no. 1 for Rs.14700/ after four month the mobile set became defective and was given to Op no.2 on 29.1.2016 for service but the set remained proper working for 7 days only and after that again same  problem arose. On 6.2.2016 set was given to service center and after service it work only for four month. On 9.8.2016 complainant visited the service center but the mobile set was not found in proper working order. On 23.8.2016 mobile set was given at the service center but remained in working order three days after service. Complainant handed over the mobile set on 14.9.2016, which was not taken from the service center as  it was not repairable. 
  2. Ops did not context the case despite of sufficient  service.

 

  1. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. 

 

  1.  We have perused the material available on record and heard the complainant  counsel.

 

  1. It is evident that the complaint is unrebutted and complaint case is proved.

 

  1. Ops are jointly and severally liable to the price of mobile set 14700/ and compensation for harassment Rs.10000/.

 

  1.  Ops shall comply with the direction within 45 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
  2.  A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties. 
  3.  File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. HASNAIN QURESHI]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. ALOK UPADHYAYA]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. PURNIMA SINGH RAJPOOT]
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.