NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/709/2010

SUNDEEP GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

4TH GENERATION MOBILE & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. RAJEEV KHANNA

29 Jul 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 709 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 12/11/2009 in Appeal No. 885/2008 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. SUNDEEP GUPTAR/o. A-40, Vasant Marg, Vasant ViharNew DelhiDelhi ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. 4TH GENERATION MOBILE & ORS.507, Ansal Bhawan, Kastuba Gandhi MargNew DelhiDelhi2. ROYAL MOBILES(Through its Proprietor/Partner), 10/127, Malviya NagarNew Delhi - 110017Delhi3. ASIAN ELECTRONICS(Through its Proprietor/Partner), J-139, Rajouri GardenNew Delhi - 110017Delhi ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. RAJEEV KHANNA
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 29 Jul 2010
ORDER

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.

Authorisation letter in favour of Sudhir Kumar be taken on file. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, distributor of 4th General Mobile Retailing & Broadband Services had replaced the mobile phone purchased by the petitioner/complainant with a new mobile phone on 22.3.2007 after issue of the notice in the complaint by the District Forum. Petitioner alleges that the new mobile phone was also giving the same problem. In the response filed to the memo of appeal, the petitioner alleged that information to the said effect was given to respondent No.1 distributor by e-mail as well as over telephone. However, copy of e-mail was not filed before the District Forum nor was it disclosed as to on which date the intimation to the above effect was given on phone to respondent No.1. In this backdrop, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER