BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.348 of 2016

Date of Instt. 12.08.2016

Date of Decision: 24.04.2018

Dr. Dilbans Singh Pandher son of Sh. Bhagwant Singh Pandher R/o 1126-Urban Estate, Phase-1, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Business Bay, Ground Floor, 182-R, Model Town, Jalandhar, through its MD/Director/CEO/Authorized Representative.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. AK Sharma, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. RK Bhalla, Adv Counsel for the OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OP is an authorized service centre of Apple Products having its service centre. The complainant was owner of Apple iPhone I6, (64 GB) (356977066317453), which he has purchased as second hand from his friend.

2. That thereafter, while using the said mobile, display screen of the said mobile was damaged as such, the complainant approached the OP on 01.09.2015 and the complainant gave his mobile for repair and since as per company's policy, all iPhones are replaced rather than repaired. On 03.09.2015, complainant received a new iPhone from OP, having new IMEI No.359317063291426. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.23,244/- in cash to OP in this regard. The officials of the OP allured the complainant to purchase the insurance cover for the said mobile. Accordingly, the complainant purchased insurance cover for the said mobile from OP, vide Invoice No.B2X/15-16/Jalandhar/IS00148 and paid Rs.2899/-, to the OP on 03.09.2015. At the time of issuing insurance, OP already had a copy of previous invoice, in which the mobile was purchased in the name of Pharmasquire Media and Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai from Unicorn Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and OP had ID Proof of the complainant. So, the OP was aware that original invoice bears a different name and ID Proof on which replaced handset was issued bears the name of the complainant. The OP did not guide complainant that while filing documents for the claim, if any need ever arises, name on original invoice must match with the name of insurance. Unfortunately, on 04.05.2016, the said phone got damaged accidentally and the display screen of the said mobile was broken, as such, the complainant immediately contacted the OP telephonically as per the procedure and also emailed to OP regarding the problem occurred in the said phone. The said complaint was got registered vide email. OP guided complainant to follow certain procedure for settlement of claim.

3. That complainant visited the official website of OP and was deeply shocked to note that his insurance claim has been rejected on the false grounds. It is pertinent to mention that complainant has earlier replaced the iPhone and thereafter, the complainant got insured the same in his name. All the payments with regard to replacement of earlier mobile and insurance policy were made by the complainant. The OP while receiving the payment, to the tune of Rs.23,245/- on 03.09.2015 for replacement of the handset and further received Rs.2899/- for insurance policy against the said mobile, never raised any objection regarding the fact that “if this is company provided mobile we would need a letter from your company declaring that you are the bonafide employee and user of this handset having the IMEI No.356977066317453 with company stamp and owner's signature mentioned on it”. It was pertinent for OP to raise the question at the time of issuance of insurance policy and not at the time of settling the claim. The said plea of OP is unlawful, illegal and accompanied with malafide intention. As such, the OP has no right to reject the claim on this ground. The OP has rejected the insurance claim of the complainant arbitrarily on false and flimsy grounds which amounts to unfair trade practices and has caused deep mental pain and agony to the complainant and thereafter, a registered legal notice was served upon the OP, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to replace the damaged iPhone with new iPhone as covered under the insurance policy and further OP be directed to pay compensation/damages, to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassing to the complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum and further OP be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the answering OP is not responsible to pay any claim as the answering OP is the only seller of mobile in question, whereas the said mobile was got insured by the complainant from insurance company namely “One Assist Consumer Solution Pvt. Ltd.” and the insurance company is responsible to decide about the claim of the complainant and the answering OP is nothing to do with the present dispute. It is further alleged that One Assist Consumer Solution Pvt. Ltd. is the necessary party in the present complaint and the complainant has not arrayed that the insurance company and therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that the mobile phone was purchased by M/s Pharmasquire Media and Publishing Pvt. Ltd. and the present complaint had not been filed by the consumer and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the answering OP is an authorized service centre of Apple product and further submitted that the complainant has admittedly purchased iPhone and insurance policy was also purchased and claim of the complainant was forwarded and it is the insurance company, who is to decide regarding the claim of the complainant and as such, the answering OP is not competent to give any finding about the claim. The other allegations made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents i.e. Ex.C-1 Legal Notice, Ex.C-2 Postal Receipt, Ex.C-3 Vat Invoice, Ex.C-4 Delivery Report, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-13 Copies of Emails, Ex.C-14 Copy of Invoice, Ex.C-15 Delivery Report, Ex.C-16 and Ex.C-17 Copies of Invoice and closed the evidence.

6. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. The factum in regard to purchase the iPhone mobile on 03.09.2015 by the complainant after making adjustment of the old mobile, from the OP after making a payment of Rs.23,244/- and further the complainant claimed that he paid Rs.2899/-, to the OP on same date for purchase of the insurance and copy of the invoice of insurance is Ex.C-14 and copy of invoice for purchase of mobile is Ex.C-16 and Ex.C-17. As per the allegation of the complainant, his mobile set got damaged accidentally on 04.05.2016 and its display screen was broken and accordingly, the complainant submitted an insurance claim with the OP, but the same was rejected on one pretext or the other, regarding that the complainant proved on the file some emails sent to the Insurance Company and received from the Insurance Company, which are Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-13, the said emails received by the complainant made to some extent establish that the mobile in question was got insured by the complainant from the Insurance Company, but admittedly the complainant has not brought on the file any receipt of premium as well as insurance policy, but in the absence of these documents, if the insurance company admitted that the complainant obtained an insurance policy of the mobile, then we can accept this, but further the case set up by the complainant himself is that the OP is a service centre of Apple product and after purchasing, the complainant got insurance of the said mobile after making a payment of Rs.2899/-, no doubt, the said premium of insurance has been got proved by the complainant by placing on the file Invoice Ex.C-14, issued by the OP, which means that OP is working as an agent of the insurance company and as per settled law, agent is not liable to pay insurance claim rather it is the duty of the insurance company, but in this case, admittedly the complainant has not arrayed insurance company as a party, this objection has been also raised by the OP in its reply, if the insurance company i.e. “One Assist Consumer Solution Pvt. Ltd.” is not impleaded as a party in this complaint, then where from the insurance claim is to be claimed, it cannot be claimed from the dealer of the mobile set. So, from this angle, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant against OP is not maintainable because the contesting OP is not an insurance company and as such, the complaint of the complainant seems to without merit and therefore, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

24.04.2018 Member President