Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/877/2017

Aditya Bhalla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anmol Watches and Electronics (P) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

B.S. Kathuria

28 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/877/2017
Date of Institution	:	22/12/2017
Date of Decision	:	28/08/2018

 

Aditya Bhalla S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Bhalla, R/o H.No. 3219, New Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Anmol Watches and Electronics (P) Limited, Regd. Office at SCO 1012-1013, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

2.     Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.202, D-Wing, Shanti Shopping Centre, Mira Road East, Near Railway Station, Thane, Mumbai, Maharashtra, through its Manager. [Struck off vide order dated 03.04.2018].

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Charanpreet Singh, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1
	:	Opposite Party No.2 struck off.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 04.03.2016 the Complainant purchased an Apple iPhone 6S 16 GB from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.47,000/- vide Retail Invoice Annexure C-1 and also got the handset insured with Opposite Party No.2 by purchasing its insurance from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.4499/- vide invoice Annexure C-2. On 29.01.2017, the above said iPhone got damaged and a claim was lodged which was duly registered by Opposite Party No.2 on 30.01.2017. Further, as desired by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant also paid the deductible processing fee of Rs.2820/- which was required to process the Claim. Thereafter, the iPhone and other documents were collected from the Complainant in the Kit and were dispatched from the Customer Connect Point to the Service Centre for further processing, but despite sending the same to the Service Centre, the Courier Company delivered it to the Complainant. The Complainant thereafter contacted the Opposite Party No.2 a number of times to do the needful, but to no avail. Eventually, a legal notice dated 4.8.2017 was served upon the Opposite Parties, but the same could not fructify. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 filed its written statement admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party as it is only a Seller of the mobile handset. The dispute is between the insurer and the Complainant. The liability, if any, is of the Opposite Party No.2 (Insurance Company) who has provided insurance to the Complainant for his mobile. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Per endorsement made by the learned Counsel for the Complainant, on the title of the Consumer Complaint itself, the name of Opposite Party No.2 was ordered to be struck off from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 03.04.2018.
5.         The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.1 have been controverted.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the contesting Parties.
8.         On perusal of the documents annexed with the Complaint as Annexure C-1 and C-2, we find that the Opposite Party No.1 had charged an amount of Rs.47,000/- towards the iPhone in question and Rs.4499/- for Apps Daily Insurance. After 11 months of its purchase and during the currency of the policy in question, the iPhone got damaged on 29.01.2017. The claim was duly lodged with the Opposite Party No.2, but the Complainant did not get any satisfactory solution to his problem, which led to the institution of the present Complaint.
9.          Opposite Party No.1 contended that the dispute is between the insurer and the Complainant and the liability, if any, is of the Opposite Party No.2 (Insurance Company) who has provided insurance to the Complainant for his mobile. However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as, it was the Opposite Party No.1 alone who had sold the insurance policy in question to the Complainant on behalf of Opposite Party No.2. In these set of circumstances, we are of the concerted view that Opposite Party No.1 is solely liable to indemnify the loss to the Complainant. Non-redressal of the grievance of the Complainant thus amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.1. As the handset was used by the Complainant for around 11 months, therefore, we deem it appropriate to deduct 50% of the invoice amount towards depreciation.
10.         In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under:-

[a]    To pay Rs.23,500/- (after deducting 50% of the invoice price towards depreciation) to the Complainant;

 [b]   To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]    To also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

 

11.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]. 
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
28/08/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”