Haryana

Panchkula

CC/25/2015

MANOHAR LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMBIKA ENTERPRISES. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

02 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	25 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	05.02.2015
Date of Decision	:	02.07.2015

                                                                                          

Manohar Lal son of Shri Udho Ram, resident of H. No. 1949, Sector 21, District Panchkula (Haryana).

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Ambika Enterprises, SCO No. 42, Sector-11, Panchkula-134109 (Haryana) through its Proprietor.
2. M/s Gadget Care, SCO No. 2, First Floor, Zirakpur-Panchkula Red Light, Op. Paras Down Town, Zirakpur-140603, Punjab, through its authorized signatory.
3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Plot No. 40, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.

 

                                                                         ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:               Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

None for OP no. 1.

OP no. 2 is already exparte.

Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for OP no. 3.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs with the averments that he purchased a Sony Xperia-2 Mobile Handset Model, Model C6602, White, bearing IMEI-355666057945757 on 20.07.2014 from OP no. 1 paid Rs. 23,000/-. At the time of purchase of the mobile, the OP No.1 pressurized the complainant to insure the new mobile from any kind of damage, theft etc. and the complainant insured the said mobile by paying extra a sum of Rs.1999/-.  The mobile was damaged due to accident within three months of its purchase and the complainant approached OP no. 1.  OP no. 1 took the mobile and assured the complainant that they would repair the mobile.  OP no. 1 advised the complainant to come after 7-8 days.  After 7-8 days, the complainant approached the office of OP no. 1 but the complainant was shocked when the concerned person in the office of OP no. 1 told the complainant that the mobile in question was not repaired and advised the complainant to approach the office of OP no. 2.  Complainant approached the OP no. 2 but after reaching the office of the OP no. 2, the complainant came to know that the office of OP no.2 was permanently closed.  After that complainant again approached the office of OP no. 1 and told the concerned person about the same and on this the concerned person advised the complainant to approach the office of OP no. 3.  The complainant was shocked and surprised when a person presented in the office of OP no. 3 asked the complainant that they were not responsible for the loss as the phone was not insured by them.  After that complainant issued a legal notice dated 14.01.2015 to the Ops no. 1 to 3 and no reply was received by the complainant from the Ops. The act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. OP no. 1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement.  On merits, it is submitted that the complainant purchased a mobile phone Sony Xperia 2 via bill no. 2987 dated 20.07.2014 and paid Rs.23,000/-. It is submitted that the complainant approached OP no. 1 regarding problem in his mobile phone. He was suggested to contact OP no. 2.  It is submitted that complainant tried to contact OP no. 2 and even visited their official address he was told that OP no. 2 had closed their office.  It is further submitted that the tie-up between OP no. 2 and OP no. 3 was their internal and OP no. 1 has nothing to do with it.
3. Notice was issued to OP no. 2 through process server and the same has been received with the report of refusal. It is deemed to be served and the OP no. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.03.2015.
4.  OP no. 3 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections submitted that New India Assurance Company has no office situated in Plot No. 40, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh and summons of the present complaint were served upon Regional Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh of New India Assurance Company.  It is submitted that complainant has not attached any receipt of premium paid to New India Assurance Company nor any insurance policy has been attached with the complaint.  It is submitted that complainant has not provide any details of the claim lodged with New India Assurance Company and further the complainant has not stated as to who is working in Plot No. 40, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.  It is further submitted that it has not been stated as to what happened to the legal notice sent at the address of Plot No. 40, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.  It is submitted that the New India Assurance Company has no relation with M/s Ambika Enterprises-OP no. 1.  It is submitted that Annexure C-1 does not show that complainant has paid any amount to New India Assurance Company for insurance of mobile. 
5. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP no. 2 has been filed by the complainant.      
6. Complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, authorized representative for OP no. 1 has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A and closed the evidence. Counsel for the OP no. 3 has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R3/A and closed the evidence.
7. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and have also perused the case file carefully and also considered the written arguments filed by counsel for OP no. 3.
8. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a mobile phone Sony Xperia-2 model C6602 white vide IMEI No.355666057945757 on 20.07.2014 (Annexure C-1) for an amount of Rs.23,000/-. The abovesaid mobile was insured by the OP No.1 from any kind of damage, theft etc. on behalf of the gadget care (Annexure C-2) by paying an amount of Rs.1999/- by the complainant to the OP No.1. The Op No.1 mentioned the policy No.GCNI-3748 and Scratch Code 6082903B (Annexure C-2). It is also admitted fact that the mobile was damaged in an accident within three months and the complainant visited OP No.1 for the claim but the Op No.1 has failed to repair the same under the insurance policy and advised the complainant to visit the office of Op No.2. On advice of Op No.1, the complainant approached the Op No.2 and came to know that the office of OP No.2 was permanently closed. Thereafter, the complainant was advised to visit the Op No.3 but the Op No.3 did not give any response by stating that they were not responsible for the loss as the phone was not insured by them. On 25.05.2015, when the case was fixed for arguments, the authorized representative of the Op No.1 submitted a copy of the agreement executed between M/s Cronetic Techonologies (P) Ltd. (Gadget Care) and At COM dated 01.01.2014 which was placed at Mark ‘X’ and thereafter, none has appeared on behalf of the OP No.1. On going through the abovesaid document and Annexure C-2, it reveals that the New India Insurance authorized M/s Gadget Care and its certified retailers, distributors, associates to insure the articles. M/s Cronetic Technology (Gadget Care) further executed the agreement with At Com, SCO 42, Sector-11, Panchkula. From the above, it reveals that At Com has never authorized Ambika Enterprises to insure the mobile phone on behalf of At Com and they have failed to place on record the policy No.GCNI-3748 and Scratch Code 6082903B issued to the complainant. It is clear that the Ambika Enterprises (OP No.1) without any authority insured the mobile phone and received the premium of Rs.1999/- from the complainant. The Op No.1 also failed to produce any document to show that they have deposited the premium amount with At Com, Gadget Care or New India Insurance Company. In their written statement, the OP No.1 has admitted that the tie-up between the Op No.2 and Op No.3 was their internal and OP No.1 has nothing to do with it. In their written statement, the OP No.1 has not mentioned that they have been authorized by Op No.2 or OP No.3 to insure the mobile phone on their behalf. The Op No.1 is befooling the customer by having insured their mobile phone without any authority. The Op No.1 also kept the amount of insurance with them which amounts to unfair trade practice on their part.
9. It is apparent from the record that the amount of premium that the Op No.1 had charged from the complainant had not been forwarded to the insurer. Further, Op No.1 has also not produced even an iota of evidence to prove that it had ever been authorized by the insurer to enter into the insurance transaction on its behalf. These facts, when examined conjunctively, lead to the only inference that Op No.1 had committed an unfair trade practice of announcing to the customer population that it is authorized to insure the product sold by it, while it had in fact no authority to do that act. Thus, OP No.1 tried to lure the customers to its fold by adopting an unfair trade practice which cannot be validated for want of any authorization to it therefor.
10. In view of the above, the present complaint of the complainant deserves to be succeeded and the same is allowed accordingly. The Op No.1 is directed as under:-

(i)      To refund the amount of Rs.23,000/- the cost of mobile and Rs.1999/- charged for insurance of mobile to the complainant alongwith 9% interest from the date of receipt till realization.

(ii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment.

11. This order be complied with within a period of one month from the date its communication to it comes about. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

02.07.2015           ANITA KAPOOR                   DHARAM PAL

                             MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                                     DHARAM PAL 

                                                     PRESIDENT