Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Room No. 208 2nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran
Consumer Complaint No : 107 of 2017
Date of Institution : 22.12.2017
Date of Decision : 23.09.2019
Jagpreet Singh aged 37 years son of Jagir Singh son of Gurpal Singh, resident of village Sabrah, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.
…..Complainant
Versus
- Bachittar Singh son of Malook Singh, resident of village Sabrah, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran,
- AP Daily Solution Ltd. D3137-39 Oberai Garden Estate Chandi Wali Forum Road Andheri East Mumbai,
- Punjab Time Center through its authorized signatory Hall Bazar Amritsar. …Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Member
For the Complainant Sh. K.K. Dwivedi Advocate
For O.P No. 1, 2 Exparte
For O.P. No. 3 (Sh. Rupinder Singh in person) Ex Parte
ORDERS:
Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The complainant Jagpreet Singh has filed the present complaint by alleging that earlier the respondent No. 1 Bachittar Singh son of Malook Singh who is also resident of village Sabrah was good friend of the complainant and on believing the opposite party No. 1, the complainant has accepted the certain advises from the opposite party No. 1. The complainant was in need of a mobile phone of a good quality and at the advise and asking of the opposite party No.1, the complainant alongwith the opposite party No.1 had gone to Punjab Time Center for purchasing mobile phone of a good quality. On 29.11.2016, the complainant had purchased a Iphone 7 plus gold having 128 GB capacity from Punjab Times Center, Hall Bazar, Amritsar for a sum of Rs. 82,000/- in cash. The complainant received a bill as a proof of the said mobile under invoice number 55924 dated 29.11.2016 which was signed and issued by the authroised signatory of Punjab Time Center Hall Bazar Amritsar. The complainant inserted a SIM bearing mobile No. 94630-06310 of JIO Company in the said mobile. Complainant went to Patti Bazar in connection with some urgent work and near court complex he got a telephonic call from some person and while answering the call somebody snatched the mobile of complainant. The complainant tried to catch hold of the snatcher but he could not get success and the snatcher of the mobile ran away after snatching the mobile of the complainant as stated above. The complainant has got the said mobile insured at the advise of the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 3 with the opposite party No. 2. The complainant had intimated the opposite party No. 2 regarding the loss suffered by him in connection with the mobile as detailed above, but neither opposite party No. 2 nor opposite party No. 3 has given any response with regard to the loss suffered by the complainant. The complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 82,000/- i.e. the purchased price of mobile as well as he has suffered mental agony and harassment. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have miserably failed to provide an effective service as the mobile in connection was insured by the complainant with opposite party No. 2 at the advise of opposite party No.1 i.e. the seller of the mobile in question. the opposite parties are liable to refund the earlier amount of said mobile received from the complainant and also to compensate the complainant for unnecessarily harassment and mental agony suffered by him due to the negligence and carelessness of the officials of the opposite parties. The complainant has prayed the opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, the opposite parties be also directed to make the payment of the said insured claim so police purchased. Feeling dissatisfied by the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant perforce has filed this complaint against the opposite parties.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties but no one appeared on behalf of opposite parties and consequently, the opposite party No. 1, 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.2.2018 and opposite party No. 2 vide order dated 5.2.2019. However, during the proceedings of the present case at the stage of arguments, the opposite party No. 3 has joined the proceedings.
3 In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-6 and closed his evidence.
4 We have heard the Ld. counsel for complainant, opposite party No. 3 and have also carefully gone through the evidence and documents on the file.
5 The complainant has produced on record his affidavit Ex. C-1 and pleaded that earlier the respondent No. 1 Bachittar Singh son of Malook Singh who is also resident of village Sabrah was good friend of the complainant and on believing the opposite party No. 1, the complainant has accepted the certain advises from the opposite party No. 1. The complainant was in need of a mobile phone of a good quality and at the advise and asking of the opposite party No.1, the complainant alongwith the opposite party No.1 had gone to Punjab Time Center for purchasing mobile phone of a good quality. On 29.11.2016, the complainant had purchased a iphone 7 plus gold having 128 GB capacity from Punjab Times Center, Hall Bazar, Amritsar for a sum of Rs. 82,000/- in cash vide Bill Ex. C-2. The complainant received a bill as a proof of the said mobile under invoice dated 29.11.2016 which was signed and issued by the authroised signatory of Punjab Time Center Hall Bazar Amritsar. He further pleaded that the complainant interested a SIM bearing mobile No. 94630-06310 of JIO Company in the said mobile and complainant went to Patti Bazar in connection with some urgent work and near court complex he got a telephonic call from some person and while answering the call somebody snatched the mobile of complainant. The complainant tried to catch hold of the snatcher but he could not get success and the snatcher of the mobile ran away after snatching the mobile of the complainant as stated above. The complainant has also placed on record one application addressed to Police Station City Patti Ex. C-6. The complainant has got the said mobile insured at the advise of the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 3 with the opposite party No. 2 vide a complaint. The complainant had intimated the opposite party No. 2 regarding the loss suffered by him in connection with the mobile as detailed above but neither opposite party No. 2 nor opposite party No. 3 has given any response with regard to the loss suffered by the complainant. The complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 82,000/- i.e. the purchased price of mobile as well as he has suffered mental agony and harassment. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have miserably failed to provide an effective service as the mobile in connection was insured by the complainant with opposite party No. 2 at the advise of opposite party No.1 i.e. the seller of the mobile in question. The opposite parties are liable to refund the earlier amount of said mobile received from the complainant and also to compensate the complainant for unnecessarily harassment and mental agony suffered by him due to the negligence and carelessness of the officials of the opposite parties and the complainant prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
6 The evidence led by the complainant on the file goes unchallenged and unrebutted as Opposite Parties are proceeded against exparte in the present complaint and there is no reason on the file as to why the evidence produced by the complainant be not believed. Otherwise also, due notice was issued to the Opposite Parties and opposite parties did not appear in the Forum in order to contest the complaint which shows that the Opposite Parties have nothing to say upon the allegations leveled against them by the complainant. However, during the course of arguments, the opposite party No. 3 appeared and contended that there is no role of opposite party No. 3 in the case in hand and contended that the insurance relates to opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 is liable for the same and there is no liability of opposite party No. 3. There is also no any record against the oppsotie party No.1. As such, complainant is not entitled to any claim from the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. However the opposite party No. 2 has not cared to resolve the matter, is not only committed deficiency in service, but also indulged in an unfair trade practice.
7 In light of the above discussion, the complaint succeeds and the same is hereby allowed with costs in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 is directed to make the payment of insurance claim to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 3,500/- (Rs. Three Thousand and Five Hundred only) . Opposite Party No.2 is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Forum
23.9.2019
(Charanjit Singh)
President
(Jaswinder Kaur)
Member
