DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.143/2016

Dr. S. N. Sewak                                                           Senior Citizen

R/o M-67A, First Floor,                                               (82 years old)

Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi-110017                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1.      Apps Daily Damage Insurance

          CC 1040, Delhi City South

          B-4, Ground Floor, Shop No.4,

          Near Aggarwal Sweets, Kalkaji,

          New Delhi

2.      Spice Retail Ltd.

Shop No.10, New Market,

Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi-110017  

    ….Opposite Parties

Date of Institution        :      13.05.2016  Date of Order                :      21.02.2018

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a smart phone Gionee Marathon –M4 Grey from OP No.2 on 23.11.15 for Rs.14,000/- manufactured by Gionee company. On the assurance that the complainant would get the benefit of free repair in case of an accidental damage with pick up and drop facility the complainant insured his mobile with OP No.1 after paying Rs.1299/-. It is stated that his mobile phone got damaged in an accident and the complainant immediately reported the matter to the OP No.2 who helped in making the complaint to the OP No.1 (Insurance Co.)  at 02261555222 on 13.04.16. The OP No.1 confirmed his claim vide an email and asked the complainant to contract their Kalkaji office.  It is submitted that the complainant went to the Kalkaji office of OP No.1 to deposit the smart phone for repair but they refused to do so giving no valid reason and it was informed him on telephone that his claim could not be admitted because he was late in putting a Sim into it after the purchase of the mobile phone. Finding no option, the complainant visited service centre of manufacturing company (Gionee) on 18.04.16 and get repaired his handset for a sum of Rs.3078/-. It is stated that the insurance company OP No.1 has failed to fulfill its commitment, misguided and harassed him which caused physical and mental torture to him. Complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OPs to pay Rs.3078/- for the repairs and Rs.5000/- as damages.

OP No.1 has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 07.11.16.

In the written statement OP No.2 has inter-alia stated that OP No.2 has no concern with OP No.1 and in the whole complaint there is not a single allegation against the OP No. 2 regarding any deficiency in service. All the allegations made in the complaint are against the OP No.1/Insurance Company and the prayer clause of the complaint has also showed that the complainant has sought claims/compensation only from OP No.1/Insurance Co. It is submitted that the OP No.2 is just a retailer and is engaged in business of selling the handsets of different companies. OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence.

We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.

Complainant has placed on record the copy of bill dated 23.11.15 which shows that the Complainant had purchased a mobile phone for Rs.14000/- from OP No.2 manufactured by Gionee. He has also filed copy of invoice dated 23.11.15 issued by OP No.2 whereby his phone was insured by OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.1299/- under the scheme “Daily Assure Plus Lite.” In pursuance to the incident report submitted by the complainant to the OP No.1, the OP No.1 vide email dated 16.04.16 requested the complainant  to submit the 8 documents as detailed in the email and to pay Rs.5,00/- to the OP No.1. The document is Mark D.

Complainant has not filed any document to show that he had complied with the terms of the said email dated 16.04.16 received by him from OP No.1. There is no document except the bare statement of the complainant himself that the OP No.1 had refused to entertain his complaint because of putting a Sim Card into the mobile phone in question late. Repair receipt (copy Mark E) is dated 18.04.16. The Complainant himself repaired the mobile phone from one centre after paying Rs.3078/-. It was for him to comply with the terms of email dated 16.04.16 sent to him by OP No.1 but there is every reason to infer or presume that instead of doing so the complainant who seemed to be in a hurry got his mobile repaired at his own cost for which the OP No.1 cannot be held guilty. There is no iota of evidence on the record to show that any stage the OP No.1 had shown any disinclination in repairing the mobile phone in question. Hence, we hold that OP No.1 is not guilty of deficiency in service or deficiency in service.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 21.02.18