Haryana

Kurukshetra

205/2017

Vikas Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bala JI COmm - Opp.Party(s)

Roshan Sharma

20 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.205 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 29.09.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:20.03.2018.

Vikas Sharma S/o Sh. Vishnu Dutt VPO Hathira, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Balaji Communication Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its Manager.
2. App. Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd., C Wing, 6^th Floor, Oberoi Garden Estates, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Maharashtra-400 072 through its Director.

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.   

Present:     Sh. Roshan Sharma, Advocate, for complainant.   

                OPs exparte.

               

ORDER

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

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set of Vivo model V3 bearing IMEI No.862738030481073 for a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the Op No.1 vide bill No.3718 dt. 03.10.2016.  It is alleged that the complainant also insured the said mobile set from the Op No.2 and paid Rs.1249/- to the Op No.2.  It is further alleged that from the very beginning, the said mobile set was having a lot of defects and problems such as display, restarting problem, FM Radio and voice etc.  It is further alleged that despite repair, the defects were not removed from the said mobile set.  It is further alleged that the complainant fell down and the said mobile set was damaged as one motor-cycle passed over it.  It is further alleged that the complainant contacted the Op No.2 for settlement of claim but the Op No.2 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.15,000/- as cost of mobile set and Rs.1249/- as insurance of mobile set and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed  exparte vide order dt. 09.11.2017.  The Op No.1 also did not appear on 20.03.2018 and was proceeded exparte.  The complainant produced on record the affidavit, photo-stat copy of cash memo and receipt regarding the payment of Rs.1249/- to Op No.2.

4.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully and minutely.

5.             It is on record that the complainant got the mobile set insured from Op No.2 for the amount of Rs.1249/-.  However, the Op No.2 has failed to explain the circumstances in this regard. 

                So, in these circumstances, the complaint of complainant stands allowed and Op No.2 is directed to pay the insurance amount of Rs.15,000/- 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.2.  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.:20.03.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member