SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in respect of non-settlement of insurance claim of complainant’s mobile hand set are the allegations arrayed against ops.
2. Complaint in ‘short’ reveals that complainant purchased a Gionee,M-3 model mobile hand set bearing EMI No.866924027028129 from Je Mobile Store, Tulsi Bazar,Kendrapara)(OP No.2). The authorized dealer of Apps daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd.(OP No.1) by paying an amount of rs.11,000/- vide Bill No.4059 dtd.9.10.15. As per the business policy of OP No.1, complainant opted for an insurance coverage of his mobile hand set paid Rs.500/- vide Memo No.226 dtd.9.10.2015 to Jagannath Enterprises(OP No.3). It is revealed that on dtd.05.04.2016, when the complainant was going to the market faced an accident and the mobile hand set fell down in nearby drain and stopped functioning.,immediately complainant reported the matter to OP No.2 & 3. On dtd.07.04.2016 OP No.1 sent a message to complainant that his claim has been registered as Add0504163023032 and asked the complainant to deposit the documents before Op No.2 and OP No.1 further requested to deposit Rs.500/- before centre executive of OP No.1. Accordingly, complainant on dtd.9.4.16 handed over the damaged hand set with the documents and also paid Rs.500/- before OP No.3 and OP No.3 in proof of receipt granted job sheet to the complainant. Further, complainant deposited Rs.500/- in the account of Sri Gura Kumar Sahu, Shree Jagannath Agency(OP No.4) which operates in Axis Bank,Kendrapara. It is further revealed from the complaint petition that as per the policy of OP No.1 which is displayed in the shop of OP No.2, where OP No.1 declared that consumer will get after sales and service within 30 to 45 days. But till filing of the present complaint, the Ops have not settled the claim of the complainant which gives financial loss and mental agony to the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and complainant prays this Forum seeking a direction to Ops to hand over the new mobile handset of same model or any other model of equivalent price along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and cost of litigation in favour of complainant.
3. Notice was served to OP N.1 to 3 by Regd. post withAD by this Forum. But OP No.1 to 3 did not prefer to appear into the dispute, hence set ex-parte by the Forum vide Order No.13 dtd.5.5.17. OP No.4 is deleted from the proceeding for non-appearance on the submission of the complainant.
4. Heard ex-parte submissions advanced by Ld. Counsel for complainant, in the present dispute, complainant to substantiate his case filed attested Xerox copies of Job sheet dtd.9.4.16, attested xerox copy of counterfoil of the Book dtd.18.5.16, attested Xerox copy of smart card issued by OP No.1, attested Xerox copy of Retail Invoice dtd.9.10.15, attested Xerox copy of Incident report(Form 2C), attested xerox copy of term and conditions of insurance issued by OP N.1 and attested xerox copy of mobile hand set claim Form (Form 1C). the allegations of the complainant regarding purchase and damage of mobile hand set alongwith its due insurance coverage and subsequent lodging of the claim before Ops are clearly supported by the above documents, which are filed into the dispute to justify the grievance of the complainant. It is a fact that complainant had purchased the Gionee M-3 mobile hand set from OP No.2 by paying an amount of Rs.11,000/-. It is also a fact that the mobile hand set was insured by paying due ‘premium’ with OP No.1 for covering all risks(theft, burglary, physical damage including flood damage) for a period of 12 months as it reveals from the terms and conditions of the insurance policy granted by OP No.1. Accordingly, the complainant purchased the mobile hand set on dtd.9.10.15 and the said mobile hand set got damaged on dtd.5.4.16 within the existence of insurance coverage period. It is also revealed from the document that official claim has been lodged, due charges has been paid and the damaged hand set is handed over to the OP No.1’s centre executive which clearly shows that complainant has sincerely complied the conditions to get back the new mobile hand set in place of insured damaged mobile hand set. Equally, the present consumer complaint is non-rebutted in nature, in addition to that when the complainant has produced the documentary evidence to substantiate his case by complying all the formalities asked by the OP No.1 to 3 for settlement of the claim and on its non-settlement the OP No.1 & 3 have committed deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice by which the complainant like consumer is definitely sustaining mental agony.
Considering the ex-parte submissions, it is directed that OP No.1, Apps daily Solutions will refund a new mobile hand set of same model and price to the complainant, if not handed over earlier and, if the particular model of same price is not available, the OP No.1 will replace a new mobile hand set of same price as per the choice of the complainant. If, complainant does not choice/prefer any model, OP No.1 will return the price of the mobile hand set as per the Retail Invoice i.e. Rs.11,000/- along with 6 per cent simple rate of interest calculating from dtd.9.4.16 to till its realization. The order is to be carried out within one month of receipt of this order, failing which 9 per cent interest will be charged of the delayed period. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand)only towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
Accordingly, Complaint is allowed in part with cost on ex-parte.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 7th day of June,2017.
