DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.133 of 19.4.2017

                                      Decided on:   2.8.2018

Sahib Khurana aged about 20 years, son of Shyam Sunder Khurana, resident of 242/2, Jourdian Bhattian Chowk, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Apps Daily Solution Pvt. Ltd.D-3137, Oberai Garden Estate, Chjandivali Farm Road, Andheri ( E) Mumbai-400072, through its M.D.
2. Phone Zone, Shop No.1, Bahera Road, Near Car Parking A.C.Market, Patiala through its Prop. Amandeep Singh Chintu( Mobile No.99147-10000)
3. Apps Daily, Sewak Plaza, near Columbia Asia Hospital, Bhupindra Road, Patiala, through its Prop.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member                                      

ARGUED BY:

                                       Sh.H.S.Kathuria,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite parties No.1to3 ex-parte.                              

 ORDER

                                             SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA, MEMBER

1. Sh. Sahib Singh Khurana ( hereinafter referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint against Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & others( hereinafter referred to as OP/OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one mobile make Lenovo Vibe K4 Note (Black 16 GB), vide bill dated 8.5.2016 for Rs.11,999/- through online(Amazone), which was delivered to him on 13.5.2016. The complainant got insured the mobile phone from OP No.1, through OP No.2 on 13.5.2016 on payment of Rs.1250/-. The OP No.2 issued a book let alongwith a scratch card bearing No.1e5f9g6es1 of OP No.1. It is stated that complainant is a student of Gandhi National Academy of Naturopathy, 15-Rajghat Colony, New Delhi and studying in N.D.D.Y 1^st year. He used to come to Patiala on the week end to see his parents. On 2.7.2016, at about 1 1-30PM, the complainant was present at Kashmiri Gate, Near Metro Station Gate-1, at Delhi and hired  E-rickshaw. Two unknown persons came there and hired  same E-rickshaw.After crossing some distance the said two unknown persons de-boarded  the E-rickshaw. After few minutes, the complainant came to know that his mobile is missing from his bag. He reported the matter to the police of P.S.Kashmiri Gate, Delhi vide application dated 2.7.2016. The officials of the P.S.Kashmiri Gate, Delhi put the said mobile on tracking and told the complainant that they would investigate the matter and the complainant would be informed. On 3.7.2016, the complainant came back to Patiala and visited the shop of OP No.2 and narrated the facts. It was told to the complainant to come alongwith copy of FIR got registered with the Police.  He also tried to inform OP No.1 on toll free No18002099060 but the same did not exist. It was informed to the complainant by Delhi police on 15.7.2016 at about 7.37, through e-mail, that FIR No.ND-KG-000342/2016  has been registered at e-police station, Crime Branch, Delhi and the same has been forwarded to Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. On 22.7.2016, the complainant contacted OP No.2. It told  the complainant to approach OP no.1 at toll free number. On 23.7.2016, the complainant called the OP No.1 on toll free number .The representative of OP No.1 told the complainant  that  there is delay in lodging the FIR as the mobile phone was lost on 2.7.2016 and the FIR was registered on 15.7.2016.Due to this reason the claim regarding the theft/loss of the mobile was not entertained. The complainant approached the OPs for settlement of the claim and for payment of the sale price of the said mobile phone which was insured with OP No.1 through OP No.2. On 2.8.2016, the complainant received e-mail, sent by Op No.1 informing that “the claim intimation was not registered within the prescribed period of 96 hours from the time of incident, therefore, the claim lodged by the claimant is not tenable as per the terms and conditions of the protection/plan/scheme”. Due to non settlement of the claim, the complainant suffered from mentally and physically. The act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice. The complainant prays for the refund of the sale price of the mobile phone in question i.e. Rs.11,999/- alongwith Rs.50,000/-as compensation. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was duly given to the OPs but despite service OPs failed to appear and were accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In order to prove the case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C10 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. Ex.C1, is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone for a sum of Rs.11,999/- on 8.5.2016 and the same was insured with the OPs vide Ex.C2 to Ex.C4. It is alleged that on 2.7.2016 at about 1.30P.M., while the complainant was travelling in an E-rickshaw at Delhi , two unknown persons were also sitting alongwith him. After crossing some distance the two unknown persons de-boarded from the e-rickshaw and thereafter a few minutes, the complainant came to know that his above said mobile phone was missing from his bag. The complainant reported the matter at the police station, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, on the same very day i.e. 2.7.2016 at 15.46 hrs as per Ex.C7. On 3.7.2016, the complainant came back to Patiala  and informed OPs No.1&2 regarding the loss of the mobile phone. Ex.C10, is the e-mail sent by the OPs to the complainant whereby OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground, ‘claim is not tenable as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
7. In the present case, the mobile phone was purchased on 8.5.2016 and it was duly insured with the OPs. The theft occurred on 2.7.2016 during the subsistence of the insurance policy. The complainant lodged the FIR on the same very day i.e. 2.7.2016. As per the policy terms and conditions, the mobile phone in question was protected against physical damage, liquid damage, theft, data loss as well as viruses. As such the OPs are liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him. Failure on the part of the OPs to pay the genuine claim of the complainant amounted to deficiency in service on their part.
8. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant with a direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.11,999/- i.e. the price of the mobile phone to the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.Certified

copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:2.8.2018                  

                                      Kanwaljeet Singh                   Neelam Gupta

                                             Member                      Member