Delhi

North East

CC/273/2017

Sh. Praveen Goswami - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apps Daily Solution - Opp.Party(s)

24 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.273/17

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Praveen Goswami, S/o Sh. N.C. Goswami, R/o E-578-A, Street No. 12, Jagjit Nagar, Delhi 110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Apps Daily Solution Pvt. Ltd., 606, Prabhat Kiran Building, Rajendra Palace, New Delhi 110008   Wizard Digitek Computers Pvt. Ltd., C-6/232, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053 Through its Prop./Authorized Person	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

24.08.2017 15.02.2024 24.04.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 24.10.2015 the Complainant had purchased a I-phone 6 gold (16 GB) from the Opposite Party No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 44,000/-. Complainant stated that he got insured the said phone and taken the mobile insurance for Rs. 2,999/- from the Opposite Party No. 2. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 2 told the Complainant that benefits of the said insurance was given by the Opposite Party No. 1 and also assured the Complainant that in case of any theft or damage of the said phone, the insurance company i.e. Opposite Party No. 1 would pay the compensatory amount. Complainant stated on 31.12.2015, the mobile phone in question was stolen by some unknown person and in this regard, an FIR bearing no. 875/2015 was lodged in P. S Anand Vihar, Delhi. Complainant stated that he sent an e-mail to the Opposite Party No. 1 for claiming the compensation amount of the said phone.  On 12.01.2016, Complainant also filled up the claim form with all the formalities and relevant documents. Complainant stated that he several times contacted Opposite Party No. 1 through customer care service but no satisfactory reply was ever given by the Opposite Party No. 1. Complainant stated that he repeatedly approached the Opposite Party No. 1 but no one talked to him properly and satisfactorily. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 1 had not given the compensation amount to the Complainant inspite of having a valid insurance at the time of theft. On 17.09.2016, Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties but they did not give any reply. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to provide the I-phone 6 gold (16 GB). Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 21,000/- as litigation expenses.  
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.02.2023.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written argument filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased a mobile phone for a sum of Rs. 44,000/-. He had purchased this phone from Opposite Party No. 2. His case is that at the time of purchasing the phone he had also got the said phone insured for a sum of Rs. 2,999/-. Now the question is that whether the phone of the Complainant which was stolen was ever insured by the Opposite Party No. 1 or Opposite Party No. 2. The case of the Complainant is that he paid Rs. 2,999/- for purchasing the insurance policy. The Complainant has not placed on record any proof regarding the payment of Rs. 2,999/- for purchasing the said insurance policy of his mobile phone. The Complainant has filed photocopy of the invoice which is at page no. 25 (as mentioned at page no. 15 to 25 in the list of documents) filed along with the complaint by the Complainant. The perusal of the documents from page 15 to 25 shows that except the document at page 25 i.e. copy of the invoice, no document pertains to the purchase of the mobile phone. The perusal of the copy of the invoice at page 25 of the documents shows that this is only invoice regarding the purchase of the mobile phone by the Complainant. It does not mention about any insurance policy issued to the Complainant in respect of the said mobile phone. As discussed above, the Complainant has not filed any document showing that this mobile phone was insured by Opposite Parties nor he has filed any proof of payment of Rs. 2,999/- for purchasing the insurance policy of the said mobile phone. Even the Complainant has not filed the terms and conditions of the insurance policy of his mobile phone.
5. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to show that he had purchased insurance policy of his mobile phone. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
6. Order announced on 24.04.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)