Delhi

South II

CC/385/2012

Tirath Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Seagate Trhough Acce Frontline - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jul 2015

ORDER

Udyog Sadan Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi-16
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/385/2012
 
1. Tirath Ram
DGIII -217 Vikaspuri Delhi-18
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Seagate Trhough Acce Frontline
107 Deepali Building 92 Nehru Place New Delhi-19
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S Yadav PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Ehte Sham ul Haq MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

 

Case No.385/2012

 

 

SHRI TIRATH RAM

R/O DGIII-217, VIKASPURI,

DELHI-110018

 

 

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                            

 

VS.

 

1.         M/S SEAGATE TRHOUGH ACCE FRONTLINE,

204-205, MADHUBAN BUILDING,

NEHRU PLACE,

NEW DELHI

 

ALSO AT:-

ASHOK BUILDING,

6TH FLOOR, NEHRU PLACE,

NEW DELHI

 

2.         M/S PURPLE COMPUTERS,

107, DEEPALI BUILDING,

92 NEHRU PLACE,

NEW DELHI

 

 

………….. RESPONDENTS

 

                                                                                                                       

             

                                                                                    Date of Order:17.07.2015

 

 

O R D E R

 

A.S. Yadav – President

 

The case of the complainant is that he purchased 25 pieces of external hard drive @ Rs.2650/- per piece for a total consideration of Rs.69562/- from OP-2, agent of OP-1.  One of its piece stopped working after 6 months.  Complainant contacted OP-2, agent of OP-1.  However OP-2 refused to help the complainant.  Thereafter complainant contacted OP-1 by email and also visited the office of OP-1 but no relief was provided to him.  Ultimately OP-1 rejected claim of complainant for replacement on the ground “Rejected Not valid India Drive” meaning thereby that the product did not pertain to OP-1.  Complainant has prayed that OPs be directed either to replace the product with due guarantee or pay cost of product with interest and also to pay Rs.1000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

Nobody appeared for OPs despite service.  It is proved from the unrebutted evidence of the complainant that he purchased 25 pieces of  external hard drive @ Rs.2650/- per piece for a total consideration of Rs.69562/-and one of the piece was found to be defective after 6 months.  The defect was not cured nor the product was replaced.  Rather OP took the plea that product did not pertain to them. 

 

Product has been sold by OP-2 and the cost of one piece was Rs.2650/-.  Hence OP-2 is directed to pay to complainant Rs.2650/- towards cost of that product alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 03.09.2012 plus Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

 

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

         (EHTESHAM-UL-HAQ)                                                           (A.S. YADAV)

                MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S Yadav]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Ehte Sham ul Haq]
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.