Date of Filing:28-05-2018
Date of Order: 10-2-2020
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MALE MEMBER
HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM.,(PGD (ADR) LADY MEMBER
Monday, the 10th day of February, 2020
C.C.No.226 /2018
Between
Smt.Jyothi Udayagiri,
W/o.Sri Srinivas Udayagiri,
Aged 35 years, Occ: Software Engineer,
R/o.H.No.1-1-336/100,
Behind Tyagaraya Gana Sabha,
Viveknagar, Chikkaddapally, Hyderabad,
Telangana - 500020 ……Complainant
And
- Bharti Airtel Ltd, 1-8-437, 438 & 44,
Rep by Manager
First Floor, Splendid Towers, Opp: Begumpet,
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500003
- Bharati Airtel India, Rep . by Manager,
6th floor, Towera, Plot No.#16, Udyog Vihar,
Phase – IV, Gurgaon, Harayana - 122001 ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : M/s. Jaya Associates
Counsel for the opposite Parties : Mr. Hrishikesh Ganu
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
- The complainant’s case in brief is that she purchased Samsung Handset on 30-6-2016 for a sum of Rs.14,249/- from Techno Vision Sales & Services. Opposite parties provided Airtel Mobile Secure Connection to the complainant’s handset. In the month of June 2017 the handset suddenly switched off and did not re-start. She sent a mail to Airtel customer care on 13-7-2017 about the problem along with necessary documents. Opposite party having verified the documents sent by the complainant arranged to pick up damaged device and on 15-7-2017 confirmed receipt of it along with documents. On 17-7-2017 complainant received a mail from the opposite party informing that an estimate was received for Rs.5,776/- from the authorized service centre for repairing handset and a claim was sent to the insurance company for approval. Complainant sought for details of the repair or service to be done to the handset with details of authorized service centre but same were not furnished.
On 19-7-2017 complainant received another mail from the opposite party informing that the insurance company rejected the claim on the ground of improper handling of handset. On 17-8-2017 complainant received another mail from the opposite party informing that handset has been repaired and they are trying to deliver the same to the complainant and she was requested to accept the delivery. The complainant again sought for details of repairs or service done along with particulars of authorized service centre but were not provided. She received another mail on 18-8-2017 informing that opposite parties are enquiring about the status of Airtel Mobile number 9885678854 and a complaint has been registered and assured that the issue will resolved by 19-8-2017. Thereafter on 3-11-2017 opposite parties sent a mail stating that the device is out for delivery through E-Com Express courier and furnished tracking number with a request to accept the delivery and to claim damage happens if any in the future. Thereafter on 11-11-2017 complainant received another mail informing that the handset via transaction ID 2088468 raised on 20-6-2017 and the claim was rejected by the insurer as no proper care was taken in handling the handset. It was further informed that multiple attempts were made to deliver the handset but could not be delivered as complainant was not available. The complainant was confused whether the handset was repaired or not. Thereafter she did not receive any response from the opposite parties.
Complainant regularly paid Air Secure bill with insurance coverage of Rs.49/- every month from October 2017 to April, 2018 and despite coverage the rejection of the claim with false reasons amounts to deficiency of service. The opposite parties advertised that Airtel Secure Plan protects the handset round the clock against any kind of accidental /Liquid damage, Anti-Virus & Cloud back-up and use of handset need not worry for the service centre and also huge cost of repairs etc. The said promises found to be false in view of the rejection of the claim to repair the device. Hence the complainant approached Alternate Consumer Dispute Redressal Cell on 11-12-2018 and opposite parties having received notice failed to appear before the said authority on the given dates. Thereupon the complainant was advised to approach a proper Forum. Hence the present complaint for direction to the opposite parties to repair the handset through a certified service centre or to replace the product with a new one and to refund the service charges collected Rs.49/- per month for 22 months which comes to Rs.1,078/- and to certify that data in the handset is not misused, to award a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing deficiency of service and mental agony and to pay further sum of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.
- The stand of the opposite parties in the written version is that the present complaint is vexatious and is devoid of cause of action. The handset of the complainant was covered under insurance and the device repair claim was rejected by insurance company on the ground of improper handling as the complainant did not take proper care to safeguard it. The complainant ought to have impleaded insurance company as proper party hence complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The damage to the handset was caused on account of complainant’s negligence as such she is alone responsible for the rejection of the claim by insurance company. In spite of that in order to maintain cordial relationship with the consumer the opposite parties have repaired the handset and brought it to working condition and number of attempts were made to deliver the same to the complainant but the complainant for the reasons best known to her refused to receive it. The complainant is trying to gain sympathy from this Forum with false allegations. The complainant refused to accept the delivery of the product in order to extract money filed the present complaint. Hence the complaint is deserved to be dismissed.
In the enquiry the complainant got filed her evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complaint and to support the same exhibited nineteen (19) documents. For the Opposite Parties evidence affidavit of opposite party No.1’s legal Manager /Regulatory is got filed and substance of the same is in line with the stand taken in the written version. No document is exhibited for the opposite parties. Both sides have filed written arguments and made oral submissions.
Now the points for consideration are :
- Whether the complainant could make out a case of either deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claims made in the complaint?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: The facts on record reveal’s that the complainant purchased Samsung Galaxy J7 handset on 30-6-2016 and obtained mobile Secure connection from the opposite parties who covered with insurance by collecting the premium of Rs.49/- every month. It is also evident that complainant made an email to the opposite parties informing handset went in switch off mode and did not re-start. It is further reveals from the written version of the opposite parties that there was damage to the handset and the estimate given by the authorized service centre for repair is Rs.5,776/- and opposite parties claims that though insurer rejected the claim for attending repairs as a goodwill gesture to the customers repaired the handset and made number of attempts to deliver the same to the complainant but she did not accept it.
In the light of this defence by the opposite parties the burden is on the opposite parties to prove that handset was got repaired through an authorized service centre and attempts were made to deliver it to the complainant. Ex.A1 is invoice for the purchase of the handset by the complainant, Ex.A3 service request from the opposite parties dated 13-7-2017 and by this the opposite parties have informed the complainant that the device claim has been verified and arranged to pick up handset and related documents from the complainant. By Ex.A4 mail dated 15-7-2017 the opposite parties have acknowledged that the damaged handset and related documents were received from the complainant. By Ex.A5 mail dated 17-7-2017 the opposite parties intimated the complainant that estimate of Rs.5,776/- was received from the authorized service centre for repairs to the handset and said estimate was sent to the insurance company for an approval and soon after receipt of confirmation the complainant will be informed by mail. Ex.A6 is the another mail by opposite parties dated 17-8-2017 informing the complainant that handset has been repaired and they were trying to deliver the same to the complainant and she was requested to accept the delivery at the earliest. Ex.A7 is the another mail on the very next day of Ex.A6 mails whereby and where under the opposite parties have stated that the handset has been repaired and they were trying to deliver the same to the complainant. They again sent a mail on 18-8-2017 informing the complainant that they were enquiring about the status of the claim and issue will be resolved by next day i.,e 19-8-2017. Thereafter there was no communication from the opposite parties and only in the month of November i.,e more than two months after the sending of mail under Ex.A8 a mail was sent to the complainant under Ex.A9 on 3-11-2017 informing that as per the records the device is out for delivery through E-com Express courier and tracking number was given with a request to the complainant to accept the delivery of device and claim of any damage happens in future.
As already said on 17-8-2017 itself the complainant was informed by the opposite parties by Ex.A6 mail that handset has been repaired and they were trying to deliver the same to the complainant and two months thereafter also the complainant was informed of the same thing and only improvement was that the device was handed over to the E-Com Express courier. Ex.A11 is the email dated 11-11-2017 from the opposite parties informing the complainant that they could not repair the handset as claim has been rejected due to improper handling and multiple attempts were done to deliver the unrepaired handset of the complainant but could not be delivered as the complainant was not available. So there is departure by the opposite parties form the earlier version made under Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 mails that handset has been repaired and they are trying to deliver to the complainant. No reasons are assigned for different versions by the opposite parties from August 2017to November 2017. The opposite parties having informed the complainant the handset was repaired and handed over for E-com Express courier for delivery to the complainant given a go by to this version by pleading that the handset could not be repaired as insured rejected the claim and attempts were made to deliver the unrepaired handset to the complainant but the complainant was not available to collect it in the given address.
The opposite party has not filed the report of E-com express courier to prove that either repaired or un repaired handset was given to the said courier for delivery to the complainant. The inconsistent stand of opposite parties itself is sufficient to say that there is any amount of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties also have not filed the letter of repudiation given by the insurer of the product. It is not a dispute that the opposite parties have collected an amount of Rs.49/- per month from the complainant towards insurance coverage. Hence it is their responsibility to see that the claim is properly made with the insurer. No document is placed on record to show that the opposite parties made a claim with the insurer to process the claim. The documentary evidence placed on record by the complainant was clinchingly proved the negligent attitude on the part of the opposite parties in dealing with the complainant issue of settling the claim of handset and it amounts to deficiency of service. Accordingly point is answered.
Point No.2: Since there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties the complainant is entitled for reliefs .
Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to get repaired the handset from a certified servicing centre or to replace the same with a new one of same brand and model. Since the handset remained with the opposite parties with the complainant’s data storage in it the opposite parties are liable to certify there is no misuse of the same. The opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant by not delivering either repaired or unrepaired handset for all these days. Opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this complaint.
Time for compliance : 60 days from the date of service of this order
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 10th day of February , 2020
LADYMEMBER MALEMEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1-Mobile handset purchase bill dt.30-6-2016
Ex.A2-Mobile handset IMEI No.358425072403550
Ex.A3- Mail regarding pick up of damaged device dated 13-7-2017
Ex.A4-Mail regarding confirmation of receipt of damaged device dt.15-7-2017
Ex.A5- Mail regarding estimation of Rs.5776/- for damaged device dt.17-7-2017
Ex.A6-Mail regarding intimation of handset repaired dt.17-8-2017
Ex.A7- Mail regarding delivery of the handset after repair dt.17-8-2017
Ex.A8- Mail regarding complaint and issue dt.18-8-2017
Ex.A9- mail device sent through E-com express and courier tracking details dt.3-11-2017
Ex.A10- Airtel Mobile Services bill 5-10-2017 to 4-11-2017
Ex.A11- Mail regarding rejection of claim for handset and reasons for not repairing the handset dt.11-11-2017
Ex.A12-Mail grievance and the track status of complaint dt.27-11-2017
Ex.A13- consumer complaint No.273/2017 dt.11-12-2017
Ex.A14- notice in consumer complaint dt.14-12-2017
Ex.A15-proceedigns of Counseling in Consumer complaint No.273/2017 dt.06-01-2018
Ex.A16- Airtel Mobile Services bill from 05-02-2018 to 04-03-2018
Ex.A17-deactivation of Airtel Secure service dt.28-03-2018
Ex.A18-Airtel mobile services bill dt.6-4-2018
Ex.A19- Mail regarding rejection of Insurance claim for the damaged device dt.19-7-2018
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite parties : Nil
LADYMEMBER MALEMEMBER PRESIDENT
