Delhi

East Delhi

CC/267/2014

VINEET - Complainant(s)

Versus

SEEMA TELECOM - Opp.Party(s)

09 Apr 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                                                   CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC No.267/14:
In the Matter of:

Sh. Vineet Jain

R/o. A -11/45, Lane No.3,

West Azad Nagar,Delhi-110 051

Complainant

Vs

1. M/s. Seema Telecom

            7/177, Geeta Colony, Near VII Block,

            Delhi – 110 031

 

2. Xolo Mobile Head Office

       A – 56, Sector – 64,

            Noida – 201 301 UP 

Respondents

                                                  Date of Admission - 09/04/2014

                                                   Date of Order        - 02/06/2015

ORDER

 

Ms. Poonam Malhotra, Member :

 

            The brief conspectus of facts of the present complaint are that on 25/02/2014 the complainant purchased a Xolo Mobile Phone handset Model No.Q10005 from M/s. Seema Telecom, Respondent No.1 herein.  It is submitted by the complainant that the said phone slipped from his hand and fell from a height of about 6” to 8” on a board of wood and its screen got damaged badly.  He has challenged the quality of the handset.  He has prayed that since physical damage is not covered under warranty the manufacturing company should give good consumer service.  In reply to repeated complaints through e-mails and at the Customer Care on phone the complainant alleges to have received two e-mails and a phone call where the representative told him that the handset in question was provided with One Glass Solution due to which it gets damaged even on slight physical damage or fall.  The complainant has prayed for refund of the cost of the handset and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for harassment meted out by him.

 

Notices were served upon the respondents but none put up appearance from the side of the respondents and case proceeded exparte against them.

 

            Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by the complainant in support of his case.

           

Heard the complainant and perused the record.

           

            On perusal of the record, the fact of purchase of Xolo Mobile Phone handset Model No.Q10005 from M/s. Seema Telecom, Respondent No.1 herein, by the complainant with IMEI No.911329850144008 for Rs.14,500/-vide Retail Invoice Serial No.49241 on 25/02/2014 is evident from the copy of the said retail invoice annexed by the complainantalongwith the present complaint.  It is a cardinal principle of law that one who raises an allegation has to prove it beyond doubt.  There is not an iota of cogent documentary evidence that after a fall from a height of 6” to 8” the screen of the mobile handset suffered severe damage. In the case in hand, it was for the complainant to show that the quality of the handset in question was not good due to which its screen broke even on slipping from a height of 6” to 8” height and that it was provided with One Glass Solution due to which it was vulnerable to severe physical damage even on slightest fall.  In the absence of any credible evidence to substantiate the allegations raised by the complainant,the same are not tenable.

 

Further, it is specifically admitted by the complainant that the handset had slipped from his hand and had suffered physical damage which is not covered under warranty. It being a clear cut and admitted case of physical damage to the mobile handset which the complainant has himself admitted as not covered by warranty, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and deserves dismissal and it is accordingly dismissed.

 

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rule.

 

(Subhash Gupta)             (Poonam Malhotra)                 (N.A.Zaidi)   

Member                               Member                         President