Haryana

Ambala

CC/100/2017

Ankush Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Babbar Mobile Store - Opp.Party(s)

Bhanu Partap

06 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                                    Complaint case no.        :  100 of 2017

                                                                    Date of Institution         :  03.04.2017

                                                                    Date of decision   :  06.07.2018

 

 

Anukush Gupta S/o Chaman Lal Gupta R/o House No.717 Sector-9, Urban Estate, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

 

 

1. Babbar Mobile Store near Khanna Place Ambala City.
2. Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd through its service center 64, Ist Floor Shree Radha Complex, Near B.D.School, Ambala Cantt.
3. Apps Daily Solution Pvt Ltd branch office/service center, fist floor, Shree Radha Complex, Near B.D.School, Ambala Cantt.
4. Apps Daily Solutions Pvt Ltd, 6^th floor, C-Wing, Oberoi Garden Estates, New Delhi-110008.

DELHI: Apps Daily Solution Pvt Ltd. 606. Prabhat Kiran Building, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008.

KOLKATA: Apps Daily Solutions Pvt Ltd, 5^th Floor, Unit 5D, 48 Gariahat Road, Kolkata-700019

INDORE: Apps Daily Solutions Pvt Ltd, 408-409 4^th Floor DM Tower, Janjeerwala Square, Indore- 452001.

BANGALORE: Apps Daily Solutions Pvt Ltd, Manju Shree Flat No.411, 2^nd Floor, Ist Main, 80 feet Road, RT Nagar, Bangalore-560032

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties  

 

Before:        Sh.D.N.Arora, President.

                             Sh.Pushpender Kumar, Member.

                            

                            

Present:       Sh. Bhanu Partap, counsel for the complainant.

Op Nos.1 & 2 proceeded ex parte v.o.d .18.05.2017.

OP Nos.3 & 4 proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 22.06.2018.

 

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one Vivo Mobile set bearing IMEI No.867725027286859, vide bill no.2436 dated 11.01.2016 of Rs. 14,990/- from OP No.1 with one year warranty year and also insured the mobile set through mobile insurance(apps daily) OP Nos. 3 & 4 (Platinum 15K-670283) to the OP for the same. After the purchase of the said mobile it started creating trouble many time and the same was produce before the Vivo Service Centre OP No.2 and every time the same was kept and repaired to the complainant with the assurance that the mobile will work properly. Thereafter the said mobile was physically damaged in the month of January 2017 and the complainant contacted to the vivo service centre. On advise of the OP No.2,  the complainant visited  the office of apps daily care  who told the complainant register the complaint online and same was done by the complainant and he referred to visit the OP No.3 for the same and thereafter, the complainant visited the office of OP No.3 and who refused  the complainant number of time and ultimately after request complainant damage set was delivered to the OP No.3 along with  Rs.1,000/- was paid to him through online process and they assured the complainant  that the set was repair/replaced with 10 working days. The complainant again approached after 15 days to the office of OP No.3 for the status of mobile set but nothing was done by the Ops. Due to this act of the Ops, the complainant has suffered great mental pain and harassment and there is a deficiency in the service on the part of all Ops by not repairing/replacing the faulty/damaged mobile set in question. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notices issued to Ops No. 1 & 2 but none have appeared on behalf of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and they have proceeded ex-parte v.o.d. 18.05.2017. OP Nos. 3 & 4 were also proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.06.2018.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-4 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard counsels for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased one Vivo Mobile set bearing IMEI No.867725027286859 vide bill no.2436 dated 11.01.2016 of Rs. 14,990/- from OP No.1 with one year warranty Annexure C-1 and also insured the mobile with OP Nos. 3 & 4 after paying Rs. 1,249/- as insurance premium as per Annexure C-4. The complainant has come with the plea that the mobile phone got physical damaged during the subsistence of insurance period, which was valid for one year. As per job sheet as Annexure C-3 clearly depicts that mobile handset was physically damaged (display/Screen broken) and this document has been issued by service center/OP No.2. In the present complaint, the complainant got insured his mobile from OP Nos.3 & 4. As per Annexure C-2 issued by OP Nos.3 & 4  i.e. brochure of Apps Daily Solution Pvt Ltd. and  they have mentioned that if any mobile become physical damage, liquid damage, theft, data loss and viruses, in this way the insurance company has attracted the consumers by mentioning such type of facilities but when any claim has been lodged than the insurance company on technical ground reject the genuine claim despite the fact that the product in question was insured after receiving the adequate premium. The counsel for complainant has draw our attention towards the Section 2(1)(r) in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is under:-

 (r) “unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:—

(i) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model;

(ii) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade;

(iii) ………………;

(iv) represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have;

(v) …………………;

(vi) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services;

6.                Perusal of the file it is  revealed that the complainant had also paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- for repairing the mobile set during warranty period. Due to defect in the mobile, the complainant has been deprived of to use the hand set despite spending handsome amount. Therefore, it is very well established that the phone was got damaged and  is not in working condition. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a benevolent social legislation as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in their judgements from time to time and is aimed at providing for better protection of the interests of the consumers as defined in the preamble to the Act itself but despite that the insurance companies are having tendencies to avoid the genuine claims on one pretext or the other and this is main reason of increasing of litigation between the insured and insurance companies. In the present case, the Ops despite registered notices not pursued the case and they were proceeded against ex-parte. As such, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant. We are view that OP Nos. 3 & 4 have not settled the claim of the complainant inspite of taking the premium from the complainant which tantamounts deficient in service on as well as unfair trade practice which should be dealt with the heavy hands.

7.                In view of above discussion, the insurance company has not paid the insurance amount of handset till today and OP Nos. 3 & 4 are liable to pay insured amount. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby allowed against the OP Nos.3 & 4/insurance company  with costs and  dismissed against OP Nos. 1 & 2 as it has only sold the mobile in question as its to the consumer. OP Nos. 3 & 4 are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To pay the invoice amount Rs. 14,990/-  as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization subject to return the old mobile along with accessories  to the OP Nos. 3 & 4.

 

(ii)     To pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on:06.07.2018

 

                               

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)               (D.N. ARORA)

                             Member                                   President