CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)x
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No. 318/2017
MS PRATIMA DIXIT
D/O MR. SARVESH DIXIT,
R/O HOUSE NO. D 494,
PUL PEHLAD PUR,
NEW DELHI-110044
………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S APPLE INDIA PVT. LTD
19TH FLOOR, CONCORD TOWER-C
UB CITY, NO. 24 VITTAL MALRA ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
- YMS MOBITECH PVT LTD
123, A BLOCK, CORETHUM TOWERS
SECTOR 62, NOIDA, UP
THROUGH
SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA
- RANGE TELESERVICES
K-17, LGF, ALANKAR ROAD
LAJPAT NAGAR-II NEW DELHI-110024
- M/S RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED
RELIANCE DAXMINI
B-89, A1 MAIN MARKET
KALKAJI, NEW DELHI-110019
Date of Order: 24.01.2019
O R D E R
A.S Yadav-President
The case of Complainant is that she purchased an Apple I phone 6S Plus from the OP-4 on 21.02.2016 for a price of Rs 59,340/-. The Complainant was induced to take one insurance policy from M/s YMS Mobitech Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) through Range Teleservices (OP-3) for a sum of Rs. 3000/- dated 24.02.2016 for a period of one year.
That the Complainant was induced to believe and promised that the insurance shall cover all the damages to the new phone and in the unfortunate event of any accident or damage the same shall be indemnified. The app for the same was termed as “Apps you need”.
On 25.01.2017, Complainant met with a minor accident around 5:50 PM while returning from her office at Okhla Phase III, consequently the phone was damaged due to the accident.
As per the terms and conditions of the policy norms, Complainant immediately informed to the service provider (OP-2) i.e. M/s YMS Mobitech Pvt. Ltd. through his customer care and followed the instructions. The Complainant even submitted her claim on the website provided in the insurance kit. The claim of the complainant was recorded as SD73362431596.
However, in apparent unprofessional and bad conduct of OP-2 did not collect the phone till 9th February, 2017, till when only documents were being sought by the OP-2 through its web portal. That the mala fide on the part of the Opposite party is visible from the fact that an affidavit was demanded from Complainant stating that “Partima Dixit” as on bill and “Pratima Dixit” as the actual name of Complainant were same. After a great persuasion, phone of Complainant was picked up for repairing on 10.022017 after various requirements arising on the website time and again.
The scheduled delivery of the phone was shown on the website of OP-2 as 02.03.2017. It was further changed to 15 working days. Complainant made a complaint on 03.03.2017 for the delivery of the phone, but again received a response to deliver the phone within 15 working days.
That there was no delivery of the phone and the web portal was also not helpful and delivery dates of my phone was revised on committed dates. Complainant was forced to again complaint dated 11.03.2017, 16.03.2017, 17.03.2017 for the delivery of the handset, as the complainant was suffering day to day due to non-availability of the phone, as the stand by handset was also not given by you during pick up.
That till even as on 30.03.2017 the status of the delivery was not shown and even updates stopped coming after 26.03.2017. Complainant thereafter on 31.03.2017 visited the office of OP-2 when she was assured that she would be informed the status within 48 hours.
It is stated that it was on 21.04.2017 Complainant was informed that her phone has been declared as a total loss and Complainant was directed to hand-over the entire case, accessories and original invoice to the representative of the OP. To utter shock and dismay of Complainant she was sent scanned copy of a post-dated cheque drawn on 21.06.2017 for a meager sum of Rs. 33,824/- without any basis. Complainant did not accept the aforesaid amount and stated that phone was kept for 75 days and thereafter declared the total loss and the full amount was not paid terming the action of OPs has deficiency in service. The present complaint has been filed whereby Complainant has sought refund of amount of Rs. 59,340/- with 18 % interest as well as compensation Rs. 1 Lakh. The Notice was sent to all OPs.
OP-1 was only filed reply. Other OPs were proceeded ex-parte.
OP-1 in its reply stated that there is no privity of contract between OP-1, and OP-2. It is further stated that complainant never approached OP-1 for any sort of service. It is stated that phone was damaged in the accident, and as per the warranty clause the same is not covered. It is stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
We have carefully gone through the case file. It is proved from the testimony of the Complainant that she has taken policy from OP-2 and paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to OP-2 who is an agent of OP-2. Complainant on 25.01.2017 informed the OP-2 about the damage caused to the phone in the accident and the phone was not collected immediately rather invalid enquiries were made from the Complainant. Finally, the phone was collected on 10.02.2017. The Complainant sent a number of e-mails to OP for delivery of the phone after repair, but no action was done. The Complainant has placed copy of e-mails on record. The Complainant also met officials of OP-2 but nothing was done. Finally on 21.04.2017, Complainant was informed that it is a case of total loss and only a sum of Rs. 33,824 was sent.
There is no reason why the OP-2 has not reimbursed the entire amount. The Complainant was justified in not accepting the amount of Rs. 33,824/-. It is a clear cut case of deficiency of service on the part of OP-2. OP-2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 59,340 with 9 % interest from February, 2017. OP-2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(H.C SURI) (A.S YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
.