BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer complaint no. 244 of 2021.
Date of Institution: 04.10.2021.
Date of Decision: 26.04.2024
Ravi Kumar aged about 30 years son of Sh. Rattan Lal, caste Kumhar, resident of village Abubshahar, Tehsil Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Aarna Telecom, Chautala Road, near Bus Stand, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa through authorized person Ajay Kumar.
2. Aman Tagra Manager Bajaj Finserv, Bajaj Finance Limited, near H.D.F.C. Bank, Chautala Road, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.
3. C.P.P. Group India, Bajaj Finserv, Bajaj Finance Limited, C.P.P. Additional Services Privated Limited, Ground Floor, Wing-A, Golf View Corporate Tower, Golf Course road, Sector – 42, Gurgaon- 122002, Haryana.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR …………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR ……………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Amandeep Virk, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite parties no.2 and 3 already exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that on 17.09.2020 complainant had purchased one mobile phome Model OPPO A-53 from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.12,990/- and he had got financed the said mobile after paying down payment of Rs.4000/-. That at that time complainant also got insured his mobile phone through op no.1 by paying premium amount of Rs.1418/- and he was assured that in case his mobile is fallen down and broken then he will be paid claim for two times in one year by the company. That complainant paid remaining amount in seven installments of Rs.1500/- each. It is further averred that similarly Sh. Aman Tagra Manager of op no.2 also assured about insurance of his mobile. That the glass guard of the mobile was broken and as such he visited op no.1 on 07.06.2021 for lodging his claim upon which op no.1 sent him to Navinder Sethi official of Bajaj Finance who was working in his shop who sent complaint to the company and after two days his mobile was taken away by courier company. That thereafter he received his mobile after 24 days due to which he suffered huge financial loss. It is further averred that then on 04.07.2021 the mobile of complainant was damaged in an accident caused with the motor cycle and again op no.1 referred him to Sh. Aman Tagra Manager of op no.2 who assured him not to worry as same will be repaired as of new one and thereafter on 07.07.2021 his mobile was again taken away by courier company. That thereafter complainant approached ops no.1 and 2 several times and requested them to deliver his mobile but every time they postponed the matter. Then after 28 days he received a telephone call from C.P.P. Bajaj Group that his mobile cannot be repaired and he will receive only an amount of Rs.1556/- and he will also not receive the mobile and asked him to purchase a new mobile. It is further averred that complainant was astonished to listen this and made several requests and sent emails to ops but he did not receive any satisfactory reply and due to the act and conduct of the ops, the complainant has suffered financial loss, harassment and mental agony and they have caused deficiency in service to the complainant as he had to purchase a new mobile. The complainant is entitled to a new mobile from ops and is also entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- for unnecessary harassment and is also entitled to litigation expenses from ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written version submitting therein that op no.1 did not get insured the mobile of complainant rather complainant himself got financed and insured his mobile from ops no.2 and 3 and after payment of mobile to op no.1 by finance company through RTGS, the op no.1 sold the mobile to complainant and issued bill to him. It is further submitted that after breakage of glass guard of mobile, complainant came present to their shop but op no.1 sent him to op no.2 as he got insured his mobile from op no.2 and asked him that they will see the matter of his claim. It is further submitted that Navninder Sethi is not employed in his shop and Bajaj Finance Company has separate office and op no.1 has no concern with Bajaj Finance Company. That due to damage of mobile of complainant for second time, the ops no.2 and 3 approved the claim amount of Rs.1556/- being value of the mobile at that time which is correct and op no.1 has been unnecessarily impleaded in this case. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Ops no.2 and 3 did not appear despite delivery of notices sent through registered covers and as such ops no.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, receipt regarding insurance of mobile Ex.C1, letters dated 17.07.2021 regarding complete payment of loan received by ops no.2 and 3 as Ex.C2, Ex.C3 and again insurance document Ex.C4 and delivery reports and postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C13.
5. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit as Ex. RW1/A.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. Admittedly on 17.09.2020 complainant had purchased mobile in question from op no.1 by paying an amount of Rs.4000/- as down payment and remaining amount was got financed by him from ops no.2 and 3 being financial company. At that time complainant also got insured his mobile from op no.3 for the period 17.09.2020 to 16.09.2021 as is evident from receipts of insurance dated 23.09.2020 Ex.C1 and Ex.C4. From letters of ops no.2 and 3 dated 17.07.2021 as Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 issued to complainant, it is also evident that Bajaj Finance Ltd. has received complete payment of loan amount from the complainant. According to the complainant his mobile suffered damages within insurance period but despite insurance of the mobile, the op no.3 through telephonic call offered an amount of Rs.1556/- against the damage of his insured mobile of the amount of Rs.12,990/- and also asked him that he will not receive the mobile and will receive the amount of Rs.1556/- against his insured mobile which is wrong and illegal. The ops no.2 and 3 which are financer and also insurer of the mobile in question of complainant failed to appear despite notices and opted to be proceeded against exparte. So, the pleading and evidence led by complainant goes as unrebutted and unchallenged against ops no.2 and 3. The complainant purchased the mobile in question on 17.09.2020 and got insured the same from ops no.2 and 3 for the period 17.09.2020 to 16.09.2021 by paying premium amount of Rs.1418/- and mobile suffered damages second time on 04.07.2021, so in our considered view that complainant is entitled to claim amount of Rs.8000/- against damage of his insured amount after some depreciation from ops no.2 and 3 and besides this amount he is also entitled to compensation for harassment.
8. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua ops no.2 and 3 and direct the ops no.2 and 3 to make payment of claim amount of Rs.8000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.8000/- alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the ops no.2 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, no liability of op no.1 being only seller of mobile is not made. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President,
Dated:26.04.2024 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
