Haryana

Kurukshetra

153/2017

Sanjay Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Baba Ji Comm - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Thakur

07 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                               Complaint Case No.153 of 2017.

                                                               Date of institution: 01.08.2017.

                                                               Date of decision:07.05.2018.

Sanjay Yadav S/o Sh. Balram Yadav, R/o H.No.1086, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, Mobile No.7056717007.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                             Versus

1. The Proprietor, Babaji Communication, Mohan Nagar, Opposite Telephone Exchange, District Kurukshetra.
2. YMS Mobi Teck Pvt. Ltd., Sector-63, H.No.76 H Block, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 through its General Manager.
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Office at 4 Mangoelane, IInd Floor, Calcutta through its Branch Manager.

….Respondents.

BEFORE         SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                   Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

         

Present:        Sh. Shekhar Thakur, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Sh. R.K.Singhal, Advocate for the OP.No.3.

                   Ops No.1 & 2 exparte.

                  

ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sanjay Yadav against Babaji Comm. and others, the opposite parties.

2.                It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a Lenovo Mobie, Model VIBF P1 bearing IMEI No.867363027279078 from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.17,500/- vide bill/memo No.1071 dt. 14.10.2016 and he got insured the said mobile set from Op No.3 through Op No.2 by paying premium about Rs.1500/- in cash vide insurance policy No.9500046161100000001.  It is alleged that on 14.02.2017 the said mobile set was fell down on the road and the screen of mobile set was broken.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op No.3 but the Op No.3 did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay Rs.17,500/- as cost of mobile set and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared before this Forum, whereas Ops No.1 & 2 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 13.09.2017.  Op No.3 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the claim of complainant was repudiated by the competent authority as the claim was not tenable as per the terms and conditions of insurance policy.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                 Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove their version.

5.                 We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.                 It is on record that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question for a sum of Rs.17,500/- and he got insured the said mobile set from Op No.3 for the amount of Rs.1500/-.  Ld. counsel for the Op No.3 contended that the cost of mobile set be given to the complainant after making depreciation of 25% as the complainant used the mobile set in question about four months.  It is also clear that the complainant had used the mobile set in question about four months.  In this regard, we can rely upon the authority decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana bearing first appeal No.460 of 2014 decided on 28.05.2014 titled as Deepjot Singh Vs. The Mobile Store.  So, keeping in view the above citation, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be met if the cost of mobile set be ordered to be refunded after making 25% depreciation of the same. 

7.                 Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint  and direct the Op No.3 to pay Rs.13,125/- the cost of the mobile set after deducting 25% depreciation i.e. (Rs.17,500/- less Rs.4375/-=Rs.13,125/).  Let the order; be complied with within two months, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till its payment.  A copy of this order; be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.: 07.05.2018. 

                                                                                      (G.C.Garg)

                                                                                      President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)       

                                                Member