Haryana

Kurukshetra

131/2017

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bala Ji COmm - Opp.Party(s)

Anand Garg

09 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.131 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 04.07.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:09.03.2018.

Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Gian Chand, R/o House No.404/2, Bhagwan Nagar Colony, Pipli, Thanesar, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Balaji Communication, Gita Colony, Opposite Gita School, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its authorized signatory.
2. Samsung India Electronic, SCO No.35, Sector-31, HUDA Market, Gurgaon through its Manager/authorized signatory.
3. Appdaily Solutions Pvt. Ltd., First Floor, Hariya Dream Park, Off. Mira Bhayandar Road, near D-Mart, Mira Road, Mumbai MH-401107.
4. Appdaily Solutions Pvt. Ltd. having office at SCO No.71, Krishna Market, Sector-7, Kurukshetra through its Authorized Signatory. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Anand Garg, Advocate, for complainant.   

                OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

(Though Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Adv. appeared on behalf of Op No.2).

Ops No.3 & 4 exparte.

 

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Rakesh Kumar against Balaji Communication and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set make Samsung Model Galaxy S7 Edge bearing IMEI No.357327070773086 for a sum of Rs.56,900/- from Op No.1 vide invoice No.2257 dt. 10.05.2016.  It is alleged that the complainant also got insured the said mobile set with the Op No.3 through Op No.1.  It is further alleged that the said mobile set was slipped from the table and the back camera glass of the mobile set was broken.  The complainant deposited the said mobile set with the Op No.4 for replacement of glass camera of the mobile set and the Op N.4 directed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.2845/- for the replacement of same and assured the complainant that the part of mobile set would be replaced with the new one and the amount of Rs.2845/- would be refunded back to the complainant at the time of delivery of mobile set.  It is further alleged that the Op No.3 vide letter dt. 10.05.2017 sent back the mobile set to the complainant with damaged LCD display and had demanded an amount of Rs.12,590/- for the replacement of LCD display although the LCD display was O.K. at the time of submission of mobile set with the Op No.4.  It is further alleged that the Ops No.3 & 4 had damaged the mobile set of the complainant and the same is lying useless with the 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 refund Rs.56,900/- as cost of mobile set alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and deficiency in service and any other relief which this Forum may deems fits. 

3.            Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 22.08.2017.  Correct address of Ops No.3 & 4 was not filed despite availing several opportunities, so, the Ops No.3 & 4 were also proceeded exparte on today i.e. 09.03.2018.   

4.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 and perused the record carefully and minutely.

5.             From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased by the complainant on 10.05.2016 for the sale consideration of Rs.56,900/- from the Op No.1 and the said unit was insured by the complainant from Op No.3 through Op No.1.  However, the Op No.3 has failed to explain the circumstances in this regard. 

                So, in these circumstances, the complaint of complainant stands allowed and Op No.3 is directed to pay the insurance amount of Rs.56,900/- to the complainant.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.3.  A copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:09.03.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member