Delhi

East Delhi

CC/474/2014

ADITYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMART MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

19 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  474/14

 

Shri Aditya Bansal

S/o Shri A.S. Bansal

R/o H. No. 10, Radha Krishna Kunj

Amrit Nagar, G.T. Road

Ghaziabad                                                                      ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

M/s. Smart Mobile Total Solution

Through its Authorized Person/Director/Manager

C-2/16, Yamuna Vihar

Delhi                                                                                   ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 21.10.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 19.04.2017

Judgment Passed on: 19.04.2017

 

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 Aditya Bansal against     M/s. Smart Mobile Total Solution (OP) alleging deficiency in service. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a brand new Samsung Galaxy Note 2 (GT-N7100 having IMEI number 355251057887671) from the shop viz. Mobile Satelite at Shop No. G-6, Savitri Market, Sector-18, Noida, UP for a sum of Rs. 34,000/- on 05.06.2013 and also purchased a mobile phone protection plan on the same day having card no. TWO-IND-11058 dated 05.06.2013 from the respondent.  It has been stated that executive of the company showed him the policy, which was insured for the period of 2 years with covering all kinds of damages and theft.  On 09.07.2013, the complainant approached to the respondent company on the complaint of break of display of his mobile phone Samsung Galaxy Note 2 on which the company sent his executive Shri Brahampal who checked the mobile and stated that “Aapka mobile bilkul theek hai bas display change hogi”.  He received the mobile phone for changing of display vide receipt no. 280 dated 09.07.2013 and assured the complainant that same will be delivered within 10-12 days.  However, after 15 days, the complainant did not get any response.  Even he made calls hundred times and waited till 5 months. 

          On 13.12.2013, when the complainant visited the office of respondent company, he was told that mobile of the complainant could not be repaired and took the original receipt and categorically refused to give the receipt and the mobile phone.  He was also misbehaved.  Thus, he has stated that his mobile has not been returned.  He was harassed and humiliated.  Thus, he has prayed for return of mobile or in the alternative cost of mobile of Rs. 34,000/- alongwith Rs. 3,000 for mobile protection service and Rs. 70,000/- on account of harassment.

3.       Notice of the complaint was given, but OP did not put the appearance inspite of service.  Hence, they have been proceeded      ex-parte.

4.       The complainant has not filed any evidence in support of its complaint. 

5.       Since the complaint has not filed any evidence on record in the form of affidavit, his complaint cannot be said to be proved.  Therefore, it deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

          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