DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No. 173/2016

Shri Devendar Kumar

S/o Shri Bhikkan Singh,

R/o 5A, Khizrabad,

New Friends Colony,

South Delhi-110025.                                                     ….Complainant

Versus

1. The Manager

Apps Daily Mobile Protection

Regd. Office: Apps Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

D3137-39 Oberoi Garden Estates,

Chandivali Farm Road,

Andheri (E)

Mumbai-400072

2. Range Teleservices

K-17, LGF, Alankar Road,

Lajpat Nagar-II,

New Delhi-110024.

                                        ….Opposite Parties

                                                  Date of Institution      :         08.06.16    Date of Order              :         13.06.19

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Member - Kiran Kaushal

1. Briefly put, the complainant Devender Kumar purchased a mobile phone of the make HTC on 30.06.2015 from Range Tele Services (OP-2) for sale consideration of Rs.16,000/-. At the time of purchase of mobile phone, the complainant got the same insured for Rs.1,100/- from Apps Delhi Mobile Protection (OP-1) with the plan of ‘Daily Assure Plus’ for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase. The insurance policy covered all risks i.e. insurance (theft, burglary, physical damage including fluid damage) coverage. Copy of the bill along with insurance policy booklet is annexed as Annexure-A & B. 

1.1    Accidently the complainant damaged the touch and the sim cap of the phone. The complainant immediately reported the matter to OP-1 and phone was deposited with collection agent of OP-1 i.e. the service centre and paid Rs.500/- to the authorized mobile service centre.

1.2    It is next the case of the complainant that OP-1 was unprofessional and negligent and failed to resolve the issue with the mobile phone, due to which the complainant suffered loss of Rs.17,000/-. It is further averred that despite repeated request, OP-1 and OP-2 failed to resolve the problems. Hence, aggrieved the complainant approached this Forum for direction to OPs to pay Rs.16,000/- with interest @15 % per annum and Rs.15,000/- towards mental harassment.  Additionally to direct OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- towards legal expenses.

2. Notices were given to the OPs. None appeared on behalf of OP-2 and was proceeded exparte vide order dated 11.11.2016. AR for OP-1 appeared and was afforded the opportunity to file their written statement which was not filed within stipulated time. The defence of OP-1 was stuck off. Thereafter, OP-1 also did not appear and was proceeded exparte vide order dated 17.03.2017.
3. Complainant filed exparte evidence as well as exparte written arguments. Complainant reiterates whatever is stated in the complaint as well evidence by way of affidavit.
4. Arguments on behalf of the complainant have been heard and we have perused the records very carefully.
5. Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.
6. During the oral arguments, it was submitted by the complainant that the mobile handset in question was with the Authorized Service Centre. The mobile was never returned to him after repairs and is still lying with the service centre of OP-1.
7. The fact of purchase of the mobile phone from OP-2 is established by the retail invoice annexed as Annexure-A. The retail invoice of OP-2 annexed as Annexure-B proves the fact that the complainant paid Rs.1,100/- towards insurance to ‘Delhi Assure Plus. The mobile was delivered to authorized service centre is established by Annexure-D wherein advance payment of Rs.500/- is acknowledged vide invoice slip dated 27.10.2015. Further another invoice has been placed on record as Annexure-C where the description of the damage is recorded as display damage, Sim cap damage, phone dead etc.
8. Therefore, the complainant’s case that the phone was deposited with OP-1 is established with documentary evidence. The complainant’s further case that the phone was never repaired/ replaced or returned to him is deemed to have been proved as the same has not been controverted. Thus, the fact that during the insurance period the phone was neither repaired nor replaced despite OP-1 covering the phone for all risks is established.
9. As it is noticed the insurance was taken from the representative of OP-1 who was sitting in the showroom of OP-2 and the insurance provided to the complainant is on the retail invoice of OP-2. Further, we have no hesitation in holding that OP-1 having insured the phone has not performed the part of duty. Therefore, OP-1 and OP-2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant.
10. Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct OP-1 & OP-2 jointly and severally to pay the cost of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.16,000/- + Rs.500/- paid by the complainant while depositing the mobile phone + Rs.1,100/- paid towards insurance, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of depositing the phone with the authorized service centre i.e. 27.10.2015 till realization. Additionally we direct OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- by way of compensation for causing harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.
11. OPs are directed to pay the complainant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the OPs shall become liable to pay interest @ 10% p.a. on the aforesaid amount from the date of depositing the phone with the authorized service centre i.e. 27.10.2015 till realization.

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 13.06.19.