UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY

STUDIES
School of law
Civil drafting
Submission: First appeal
B.Com.LLB (Hons) Taxation laws Vth semester

Academic year-2018-19 Session- August-Dec

Under the supervision of:

Mrs.Arpi Jain
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSALCOMMISSION, DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. OF 2018
(CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 17 OF 2017)

Ms. Dakshta Singh, D/o Ramswaroop Singh, A/o 36 years, R/o House No. 5, Vaishali Nagar,
NewDelhi. ……………….Complainant/Appellant

Versus
Tarachand Electronics Company Ltd, Shop No. 15, NirmanVihar, New Delhi.
.. Opposite Parties/Respondents

APPEAL U/S 15 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

LIMITATION

Impugned Judgment passed on 1.12.2017

Certified Copy applied on 1.12.2017

Certified copy received on 5.12.2017

Appeal filed on 1.01.2018

Hence this appeal is being filed within period of limitation.

Sir,

The above named appellant is filing this present appeal aggrieved by the Judgment &
Order dated 1.12.2017, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,
Seni Enclave, New Delhi, in Consumer Complaint No. 81 of 2017, Dakshta Singh
Versus Tarachand Electronics, whereby the complaint of the Complainant was
dismissed.
 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE FOLLOWING:

1. That the applicant had bought a 1+2 phone from the opposite party on 1.1.2016 and
paid the full amount to the respondent and the phone has the warranty of one year. The
receipt and warrant are attached respectively in the annexures.
2. That on 2.3.2016 the phone started malfunctioning and the complainant approached the
respondent with a complaint. A statement regarding the complaint was entered in the
register by the respondent as attached herein after.
3. That the respondent said that applicant should leave the phone to the respondent as they
need to check the phone and said to the applicant that he can take his phone after two-
three days and gave a receipt and bill which was paid by the complaint regarding the
advance paid for the costs of the repair ( annexure).
4. That after three days, 6.3.2016, the applicant went to the store of the respondent. The
respondent then told that someone has poured a liquid over the phone due to which it
has damaged.
5. That respondent said that he has ordered the required new parts from the Company,
Shop No. 5 Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi and the respondent told the applicant to come
after a week to take the phone.
6. That applicant went to the store of the respondent after one week, 15.3.2016. The
respondent said that he has sent the phone to the Company, Shop No. 5 Laxmi Nagar,
New Delhi without the knowledge of the applicant for further repairs.
7. On asking for a proof for the same, the applicant was denied any evidence regarding the
same.
8. That respondent told the applicant that they will call him when will phone will get
repaired and will come back from the company.
9. That the applicant did not receive any phone call from the respondent from one month.
10. That the applicant went to the store of respondent on 01.05.2017 and the respondent
told the applicant that phone has not been repaired till now and it is with the company.
11. That the respondent asked the applicant to pay a further some of Rs. 10,000 to get his
phone back and as costs for the repair.
12. That the applicantrefused to pay the unreasonable amount so the respondent refused to
get his phone back.
13. That then applicant went to the Company, Shop No. 5 Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi, they
told that the phone as described by the applicant is not with the company. It is with the
respondent itself.
 14. That in lieu of getting his phone back the applicant paid the amount to the respondent
through his credit card (credit card details annexed herein) and then respondent said
that they will call applicant when the phone will get repaired.
15. Even after several pleas, the respondent started being abusive towards the applicant.
16. That it has been four months since the respondent has the phone of the applicant and
the respondent is not ready to give it back.
17. That the applicant filed a complaint against the Respondent, before the Ld. District
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Seni Enclave, New Delhi, in Consumer Complaint
No. 81 of 2017, Dakshta Singh Versus Tarachand Electronics which was dismissed
vide its Judgment dated 10.12.2017.
18. The impugned Judgment (herein attached) has been passed by the Consumer Forum,
completely ignoring the mandatory provisions of the Act and ignoring the material on
record.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

1. Because the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Seni Enclave, New Delhi
failed to consider the evidence provided by the applicant in the form of all the receipts
and credit card details.
2. Because the Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Seni Enclave, New
Delhi, failed to appreciate the claims put forward by the complainant and passed the
impugned order in a hustle and on unreasonable grounds.
3. Because the Ld. District consumer dispute Redressal forum failed to consider that the
arguments put forward by the respondent were baseless and were not based on
substantial grounds.
4. Because the court has failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant hasn’t still
received her phone and has been constantly mistreated by the respondent.
5. Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that the claim of the Complainant
was a genuine claim and the evidence and receipts verified the same.
6. Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that the claim of the Complainant
was genuine.
7. Because the impugned Judgment passed by the Ld. Forum is against facts, evidence and
law.
8. Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that the Respondent had acted
malafidely so as to cause harm to the complainant and derive unlawful gains.
9. Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that no allegation has been made out
that the said claim of the complainant is not genuine.
 10. Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that the Company from beginning
was malafide in repudiating the claim of the complainant on baseless grounds and used
abusive language.

PRAYER
The applicant prays for the following:
a. That the impugned Judgment/order dated 1.12.2017 be set aside and the complaint
of the complainant/Appellant is liable to be allowed for all reliefs claimed.
b. That respondent is to be held liable to pay back Rs. 10,000 along with other
requisite damages to the applicant.
c. That full cost of the appeal be awarded to the appellant.
d. That any other order as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper be also
passed in favor of the Opposite Party/Appellant.

Dated 3rd December 2017 Applicant

Place: Dehardun

Counsel of Plaintiff

Ashish Vijay

Verification

I, Dakshta Singh, applicant de hereby verify that the contents of the above plaint in paras 1 to
18 are true to my knowledge and true on the basis of documents and party on the basis of
information and legal advice received which I believe to be true. Verified at Delhi on the day
of 3 of August, 2017.

Dated: 3rdDecmber,2017

Place: Dehradun

Plaintiff through its Authorised Signatory

Dakshta Singh
 Counsel for Plaintiff
Sakshi Mehrotra

BEFORE THE HON’BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE

REDRESSALCOMMISSION,DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. OF 2018
(CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 17 OF 2017)

Ms. Surbhi Singh, D/o Mudit Singh, A/o 32 years, R/o House No. 5, Rajori Garden, New
Delhi.
……………….Complainant/Appellant
Versus
Sargam Electronics Company Ltd, Shop No. 5, NirmanVihar, New Delhi.
………………Opposite Parties/Respondents

I, Ms. Surbhi Singh, D/o Mudit Singh, A/o 32 years, R/o House No. 5, Rajori Garden, New
Delhi, the undersigned do hereby nominate and appoint Miss Sakshi Mehrotra Advocate to be
counsel in the above matter for me/us and on my/our behalf to appear, plead, act and answer in
the above Court or my appellate court or any Court to which the business is transferred in the
above matter, and file petitions, statements, accounts, exhibits, compromises or other
documents whatsoever, in connection with the said matter arising there from, and also to apply
for and receive all documents or copies of documents, depositions, etc. and to apply for issue
of summons and other writs or subpoena and to apply for and get issued of any, attachment or
other execution warrant or order and to conduct any proceeding that may arise there out and to
apply for an receive payment or all sum or submit the above matter to arbitration.

Provided, however that if any part of the Advocate’s fee remains unpaid before the first
hearing of the case or if any hearing of the case be fixed beyond the limits of the town then in
such an event my/our said Advocate shall not be bound to appear before the Court and if
my/our said Advocate does appear in the said case he shall be entitled to an question fee and
other expenses of traveling, lodging etc. Provided Also that if the case be dismissed by default,
or if it be proceeded ex-parte, the said Advocate(s) shall be held responsible for the same. And
all whatever my/our said Advocate(s) shall lawfully do, I do here by agree to and shall in
future ratify and confirm.
ACCEPTED:
Sakshi Mehrotra, Advocate Signature of Client

BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE

REDRESSALCOMMISSION,DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. OF 2018
(CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 17 OF 2017)

Ms. Dakshta Singh v. Tarachand Electronics Company Ltd

Affidavit of Ms. Dakshta Singh, D/o Ramswaroop Singh, A/o 32 years, R/o House No. 5,
Vaishali Nagar, New Delhi.

……….. Deponent

I, the deponent above named do hereby solemnly affirm on oath as under:-

1. That the deponent is a plaintiff in the above suit and as such is fully aware of the facts
mentioned.
That the deponent has read over the contents of the petition and accompanying
application I have understood the contents of this writ petition and the accompanying
application. I further say that the contents thereof are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
2. That the deponent further state that no petition/application have been filed before any
other Court or tribunal seeking similar relief by the Petitioner.
3. That the contents of the petition as well as the contents of the present affidavit has been
read over by the deponent and the deponent understood the same and state the same to
be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

Verification

Verified at Dehradun on 3rdthe day of December 2017 that the contents of the affidavit are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed thereupon.

DEPONENT