Punjab

Patiala

CC/17/451

Rishu Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

A One Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Vinay Vatrana

03 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 451/2017
Date of Institution	:	7/12/2017
Date of Decision	:	3.4.2023

 

Rishu Jindal w/o Shri Arun Jain age 37 years r/o H.No.199, Street No.6, Old Bishan Nagar, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. A-One Communication, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Opposite Income Tax office, Patiala.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20^th to 24^th Floor, two horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurugram,  Haryana.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi, Member        

 

 

PRESENT:                   None for the complainant.

                             Sh.Kamal Nagpal, counsel for OP No.1.

                             Sh.D.P.S.Anand, counsel for OP No.2.

                             Sh.J.S.Sandhu, counsel for OP No.3.

         

                              

 

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Rishu Jindal (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against A-One Communication and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:

That complainant purchased two mobiles handsets i.e. Samsung SM-G925L and Samsung SM-A710F on 7.11.2016 from OP No.1 vide bill No.3402and 3401, for an amount of Rs.36,900/- and Rs.27000/- respectively. An agent insured the mobiles in question and complainant was intimated regarding the same on 13.11.2016 through e-mail. He paid Rs.2499/- and Rs.2199/- for the insurance of both the mobiles respectively. Through email, OP No.2 assured that insurance shall include damage insurance, theft insurance and pick and drop service.

On 23.2.2017 mobile phone of complainant i.e. Samsung Galaxy A7 Model SM A710F got damaged and he approached OP No.2, who assured that damage would be repaired but he received an email on 7.3.2017 from appsyouneed, having informed that claim had been rejected because the original invoice date and the date mentioned by agent of OP No.2 in the insurance was wrongly mentioned.

On 24.7.2017 mobile phone i.e. Samsung Galazy S6 Edge Model SM G925L got damaged. Complainant approached OP no.2 but the same was rejected vide email dated 31.7.2017 received from appsyouneed.in on the ground that original invoice date and the date mentioned by agent of OP No.2 in the insurance was wrongly mentioned.

Complainant continuously approached OP No.2 but they failed to adhere to the request of complainant and flatly refused to entertain his complaint. Legal notice dated 10.8.2017 was sent to OPs No.1&2 to replace or repair the mobile phones in question. OP No.2 sent a letter dated 14.8.2017 asking for the particulars of insurance policy which were duly sent on 11.9.2017 but thereafter no response was received from OPs. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of OPs, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of complaint.

3. Upon notice, OPs appeared through their counsels and filed separate written statements having contested the complaint.
4. In the written statement filed by OP No.1, purchase of two mobiles set and their insurance is admitted. It is also admitted that through e-mail OP No.2 had assured that the insurance shall include damage insurance, theft insurance and pick and drop service of two mobiles. It is further admitted that the mistake of mentioning wrong date of invoice is on the part of agent of OP No.2.There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. After denying all other averments, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. In the written statement filed by OP No.2, it raised certain preliminary objections.
6. On merits, it is denied that OP received any amount of insurance or has issued any police of insurance for the said two mobiles. Complainant has not produced any policy nor its particulars and further that he has never lodged any alleged claim with OP No.2.As such question of indemnifying him does not arise. After denying all other averments this OP also prayed for dismissal of complaint.
7. In the written statement filed by OP No.3, it raised certain preliminary objections. It is pleaded that handset in question has been physically damaged as admitted by complainant. There is no inherent defect in the handset. As such it does not cover under warranty, and repair if any, is to be done on chargeable basis only. Further, the liability if any is of OP No.2 with whom the handset in question is alleged to be insured and is also alleged to be lying with OP No.2. The obligation of OP No.3 under warranty is subject to the warranty terms and conditions as mentioned in warranty card supplied with the product. The complainant has sought replacement of mobile, which is not permissible under the law and also under the terms of warranty. The present complaint is gross misuse of process of law. There is no deficiency of service or breach of contract on the part of OP No.3 and the complainant is not entitled for any alleged relief from OP No.3. After denying all other averments, OP No.3 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
8. To prove his case, ld. counsel for complainant, furnished Ex.C1 affidavit of complainant alongwith documents, Exs.C1 to C11 and closed evidence.
9. OP No.1 despite having availed of ample opportunities failed to lead evidence and as such evidence of OP No.1 was closed by order vide order dated 22.11.2018.
10. Ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Rajinder Singh Mahatam, Sr.Divisional Manager and closed evidence.
11. Ld. counsel for OP No.3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Anindya Bose, Dy.General Manager, Samsung India Ltd alongwith document, Ex.OP1 copy of terms and conditions of warranty card and closed evidence.
12. None appeared on behalf of the complainant for addressing arguments. We have heard  ld. counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
13. The perusal of the complaint shows that complainant had purchased  two mobile phones  from OP No.1 for a consideration of Rs,27,000/- and Rs.36900/- each vide invoice, Exs.C1 & C2.The complainant in his complaint has alleged that he got the said mobile phones insured on the asking of OP No.1 and paid Rs.2499/- and Rs.2199/- for the same through Appsyouneed an online portal. He placed on record email Exs.C3 and C4 with regard to insurance of his mobile phones.
14. The said phones stated to have got damaged. Complainant approached Appsyouneed for settlement of claim but his claim was denied vide email dated 7.3.2017 and 31.7.2017 received from appsyouneed.in, Ex.C5&Ex.C6, on the ground that In invoice- invoice date mismatch with our check list, which is not acceptable. Complainant also served legal notice dated 10.8.2017 Ex.C7, upon the OPs. However, no fruitful purpose was served.
15. OPs denied all the allegations made by the complainants. Even Ld. counsel for OP No.2 made a separate statement that OP No.2 has not issued any insurance policy in favour of complainant for two mobile phones mentioned in the complaint. Ld. counsel further argued that no such payment of Rs.2499/- or Rs.2199/- as alleged to have been made through Appsyouneed, has been received by OP No.2.
16. Complainant has failed to produce on record any evidence regarding payment of aforesaid amounts for securing his mobile phone. In fact payment of Rs.2499/-  and Rs.2199/- alleged to have been made by the complainant, has been made to Appsyouneed who has not been impleaded as party by the complainant to prove his case. Therefore, the documents, Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, issued by Appsyouneed regarding repudiation of claim cannot be considered as proof of the claim having been forwarded to and rejected by OP No.2. Complainant has also failed to produce on record any bank statement/online transaction receipt in respect of  payment of Rs.2499/-  and Rs.2199/- alleged to have been made by him for securing the insurance of the hand sets through OP No.1 or OP No.2.Also complainant has failed to produce on record any policy having been issued by OPs.
17. In view of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.       
18.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President