DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C.C. No. : 351 of 2017
Date of Institution : 26.10.2017
Date of Decision : 10.07.2019
Amandeep Deol son of Jarnail Singh r/o Village Gill, District Ferozepur.
.....Complainant
Versus
- Apps Daily Damage Insurance, Apps Daily Solutions Pvt Limited C Wing 6th Floor, Oberai Garden Estates, Chandivali, Farm Board, Andheri, (E) Mumbai-400072.
- M/s Sethi Brothers, through its prop. Ashok Kumar now deceased through his L.Rs. :
- Rajesh Kumar Sethi son of Ashok Kumar Sethi son of Des Raj.
- Sourav Sethi son of Ashok Kumar Sethi son of Des Raj.
Both residents of New Cantt Road, Street No.2, Faridkot.
- Gaurav Sehi son of Ashok Kumar Sethi r/o Clock Tower street, Faridkot.
....Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.
Smt Parampal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh Charanjit Sidana, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh Ashok Kumar, Ld Counsel for OP-2,
OP-1 Exparte.
ORDER
(Ajit Aggarwal , President)
cc no.-351 of 2017
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective mobile hand set with new one and for also directing Ops to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.5,000/-as litigation expenses.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a mobile phone of OPPO Company model F-1 Plus from OP-2 vide bill no. 332 dt 25.07.2016 worth Rs.27,000/- and at the time of purchase, at the instance of OP-2, complainant got insured his mobile phone for one year by paying Rs.2400/- under Insurance Policy bearing No. Platinum/30K/7081974 from OP-1 against theft, burglary, liquid and physical damage and promised to replace the same with new one in case of any defect, damage or theft within warranty period. It is submitted that after about six months, mobile of complainant fell down and display of said mobile phone damaged and it did not work. Complainant immediately brought this complaint into the notice of OP-2, who advised him to contact OP-1 on their helpline number and on asking of OP-1, complainant deposited Rs.1500/-as Claim Processing Fees in the account of OP-1 and OP-1 also asked him to send the damaged phone through parcel. Complainant did so and then, after about 75 days complainant received parcel and was shocked to see that OP-1kept the said phone with them but did not repair the same and it was in worst condition and when, Complainant asked OP-1 for not repairing his mobile phone, they disclosed that insured mobile cannot be repaired or replaced. Op-1 did not assign any reason for not repairing or replacing the same. Legal notices dated 5.07.2017 and 25.09.2017 issued by complainant through his counsel also served no purpose. Complainant made several requests to OPs to
cc no.-351 of 2017
repair or replace his mobile phone, but all in vain. All this has caused great harassment and mental tension to him, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to pay Rs. 20,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.
3 The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 17.11.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.
4 OP-2 filed reply through counsel wherein took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable as they have only sold the said mobile phone to complainant and has no concern with insurance cover purchased by complainant. However, on merits OP-2 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect, but admitted that they sold the said mobile phone to complainant. answering OP never assured complainant regarding any kind of insurance policy and have not forced him to insure his mobile from OP-1. Complainant neither approached them regarding breakage of his phone nor OP-2 apprised him to contact OP-1. He has levelled false allegations against them and there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5 Notice issued to OP-1 through registered cover did not receive back undelivered and was presumed to be served. On date fixed, no body appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-1 either in person or through Counsel
cc no.-351 of 2017
to contest the case despite long waiting till 4 O’ clock and therefore, OP-1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.09.2018.
6 Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 22 and then, closed the evidence.
7 To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ashok Kumar Sethi Ex OP-2/1 and document Ex OP-2/2 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-2.
8 We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as OP-2. After careful observation of the record placed on file and evidence led by respective parties, it is observed that from the bill Ex C-2, it is the clear that complainant purchased the mobile phone in question from OP-2 on 25.07.2016 for Rs.27,000/-. Ex C-3 and Ex C-4 clearly reveals the pleadings of complainant that he got insured his mobile from OP-1 against any defect, damage or theft on payment on payment of Rs.2499/- for one year. Through Ex C-1 complainant has reiterated his pleadings and grievance. There is no doubt that complainant purchased the mobile phone in question from OP-2 and got insured the same from OP-1. Said mobile became defective during the subsistence of insurance period for said phone. Grievance of complainant is that despite making several requests and issuance of legal notice to OPs, they did not replace or repair his mobile phone, which amounts to deficiency in service. Had
cc no.-351 of 2017
OPs paid any heed to hear the complaint of complainant and have provided effective services by doing repair of mobile in question or replaced the same, nature of complaint would have been different. We are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1. However, OP-2 is mere retailer and only sold the mobile handset to complainant. The insurance, if any, is to be given by OP-1. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. Hence, the present complaint is allowed against OP-1 and OP-1 is ordered to pay Rs.27,000/- to complainant on account of insurance claim for his mobile phone, which was insured with OP-1. Complainant is directed to hand over the said mobile phone to OP-1 and OP-1 is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/-to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.1,000/-as cost of litigation. Complaint against OP-2 is dismissed. Compliance of the order be made in prescribed time failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint against OP-1 stands hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum:
Dated: 10.07.2019
(Parampal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Member President
