Haryana

Panchkula

CC/36/2015

PREENA PURI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMBIKA ENTERPRISES. - Opp.Party(s)

SHRADDHA PURI

22 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                                                                                               

Consumer Complaint No	:	36 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	11.02.2015
Date of Decision	:	22.06.2015

 

Miss Prerna Puri D/o late Sh.Satish Paul Puri, R/o 6, NAC Manimajra, Chandigarh-160101

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Ambika Enterprises. SCO 42, Sector-11, Panchkula, Haryana.
2. Gadget Care, SCO-106, Phase 3B2, Mohali (Punjab)-160055.

 

    ….Opposite Parties

 

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

 

Coram:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Ms.Shradha Puri, authorized representative for the complainant.

Mr.Jarnail Singh, authorized representative for the OP No.1.         

              OP No.2 already given up.

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor,  Member)

 

1. The complainant-Prerna Puri has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that she purchased a mobile phone made GOINEE vide IMEI No.861169024424344 on 14.03.2014 from the Op No.1 on the name of her sister (Shradha Puri) vide invoice No.N-73381 dated 14.03.2014 with gadget care insurance plan ID No.#GC-01-1051488 for an amount of Rs.14,000/- + insurance amount of Rs.999/-. At the time of purchase, the Op No.1 told that the phone was fully insured with replacement from the date of purchase upto one year. Unfortunately, the screen of the phone was damaged on 19.01.2015 and the complainant visited the OP No.1 for claim but he did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant requested the OP No.1 to pay the cost or repair the phone and to settle the matter but he refused to co-operate. On 22.01.2015, the complainant again requested the OP No.1 to repair/replace the mobile phone and settle the matter but the OP No.1 started shouting on the complainant by stating that made a call at 100 number, the police came and enquired the matter. This act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement. It is submitted that the complainant purchased the mobile ‘E3’ of Gionne for a sum of Rs.14,000/- on 14.03.2014. It is submitted that the complainant got her phone one year ‘protection pack’ by ‘gadget care’. It is submitted that the complainant contacted the Op No.1 who politely told her that ‘gadget care’ company has closed their office and have fled. It is denied that the OP No.1 shouted on the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Op No.1.
3. Notice was issued to the OP No.2 and the same has been received back with the report of no such person. Authorized representative for the complainant by making a separate statement gave up Op No.2 from the array of parties on 25.03.2015.
4. The authorized representative for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-13 and closed the evidence. Authorised representative for the OP No.1 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard authorized representative for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully and minutely.
6. Admittedly mobile phone made GOINEE vide IMEI No.861169024424344 was purchased by the complainant on 14.03.2014 (Annexure C-2). The abovesaid mobile was insured by the OP No.1 under the cashless protection plan by the gadget care (Annexure C-1) and premium of Rs.999/- for the insurance of the abovesaid phone was paid by the complainant to the OP No.1. It is also admitted fact that the screen of the phone was damaged 19.01.2015 and the complainant visited for the claim to the Op No.1 but the Op No.1 has failed to replace the same under the insurance policy. On 22.01.2015, when the complainant again visited the shop of the OP No.1, the Op No.1 mis-behaved with the complainant and the police was called on the spot. The police official of the police post, sector-10, Panchkula recorded the statement of Sharda Puri and the owner of the shop Kamal Mukul (Annexure C-3 & C-4). Ultimately, the police official of police post, Sector-10, Panchkula closed the case observing that the case related to the Consumer Forum so the complainant should file the complaint before the Consumer Forum (Annexure C-7). During the arguments, the authorized representative of the Op No.1 submitted a copy of the agreement executed between M/s Cronetic Techonologies (P) Ltd., and At COM dated 01.01.2014 and also placed on file the copy of the agreement between New India Insurance Company and Gadget Care which are placed at Annexures ‘X’ and ‘Y’. On going through the abovesaid documents, 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 to Ambika Enterprises to insure the mobile phone on behalf of At Com and they have failed to place any document in this regard. It is clear that the Ambika Enterprises (OP No.1) without any authority insured the mobile phone and received the premium of Rs.999/- 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. 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.
7. The fact of OP No.2/purported insurer having been given up as a party Op notwithstanding, 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.
8. 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.14,000/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of receipt till realization.

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

 

9. 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

22.06.2015           ANITA KAPOOR                   DHARAM PAL

                             MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

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

 

                                          

                                                     ANITA KAPOOR 

                                                     MEMBER