Haryana

Kurukshetra

143/2017

Kapil Dev - Complainant(s)

Versus

Base 39 - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Kumar

23 Apr 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.143 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 24.07.2017.

                                                     Date of decision: 23.04.2019.

 

Kapil Dev aged 37 years son of Shri Sadhu Ram, resident of Vivekanand Colony Dhand Road, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Base 39 SD Communication Behind S.D Girls Hostel, Gian Marg Ambala Cantt. through Manager.
2. Syska Gadget Secure, M/s Leehan Retails Pvt Ltd., 4^th Floor near Symbiosis college sakara nagar sapphire plaza, Pune Maharashtra through Director.
3. Bansal Communication (Authorized service centre of Samsung) Pipli Road, Pipli Kurukshetra through its Manager. 

….Opposite parties.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Rajesh Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Mohit Tayal, Advocate for Opposite party No.2.

                Opposite parties No.1 & 3 already exparte.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Kapil Dev against Base 39 SD Communication and others, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a Samsung Glaxy A-3 Gold mobile for a sum of Rs.12,900/- through opposite party no.1 on 2.1.2016 with a warrantee of one year. At that time, op no.1 had allured the complainant for getting the insurance from op no.2 for any accidental or theft purpose and the complainant got insured the said mobile after paying Rs.1199/- to op no.2 through op no.1. It is further averred that the mobile set was having a lot of defects and problems from the very beginning. It started giving trouble in display, restarting, FM radio and voice and all this happened as the handset was having manufacturing defect. The complainant showed the mobile to op no.3 and op no.3 updated his mobile software through internet only without giving/ issuing any job sheet. It is further averred that thereafter one day, the complainant was going on the road at Kurukshetra and in the way complainant fell down and mobile set of complainant was damaged as one bike passed over it. That immediately he contacted to op no.2 for making complaint on toll free number and the official of op no.2 had issued CIN No.1607313708 and op no.2 instructed to the complainant to show the mobile to its authorized service centre i.e. op no.3 but op no.3 denied to make any repair in the mobile as the mobile was physical damaged. The complainant requested to op no.3 that mobile was fully insured from op no.2 and op no.2 had instructed the complainant to contact op no.3 for repair or to prepare the estimate of repair but op no.3 denied to entertain any request. It is further averred that complainant again contacted op no.2 on toll free number and also met Mr. Amardeep representative of op no.2 at Kurukshetra who assured the complainant that as per policy terms, it is the duty of his company for getting the damage/ insured handset from complainant and to deliver it after repair to the insured person but nobody came to complainant for taking the mobile set for repair. The complainant again contacted Mr. Amardeep but to no effect. It is further averred that no terms and conditions and even no policy cover were provided to the complainant even after receiving the consideration of Rs.1199/- from complainant. The ops have caused harassment and mental tension to the complainant and have also caused deficiency of service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, opposite party no.1 opted to be proceeded against exparte.

4.             Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, estoppal and that complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties. The Syska Gadget Secure Scheme is facilitated by Leehan Retails Pvt Ltd. and insurance cover provided by the New India Assurance Company, Mumbai. It is further submitted that complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. In fact the complainant had intimated to answering op and answering op immediately issued claim identification numbers to the complainant but the complainant fails to submit the required documents i.e. cancelled cheque or photocopy of passbook, declaration letter self attested in English/ Hindi, FIR etc., notarized subrogation letter (Form 4A), original bill on claimant’s name, self attested photo ID proof, sim blocking form, theft claim form duly signed by complainant. That the complainant had not provided the above mandatory documents to the answering op, hence the claim is not processed further and was auto closed for want of mandatory documents. It is further submitted that the policy cover booklet is issued to the customer with insurance kit and all terms were also accepted by the customer at the time of purchasing the insurance scheme. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.

5.             Initially opposite party no.3 appeared in person and sought adjournments for filing written statement but thereafter none appeared on behalf of op no.3 and as such op no.3 was proceeded against exparte.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.2 tendered documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.

7.             We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.2 and have perused the case file carefully.
8.             From the perusal of invoice cum receipt dated 2.1.2016 Ex.C1, it is clear that complainant got insured his above said mobile from opposite party no.2 through opposite party no.1 at the time of purchase of the mobile and paid a sum of Rs.1199/- as premium for the insurance of his mobile. According to the complainant, his mobile was defective from the very beginning and then it was damaged as it fell down on the road and a motorcycle passed over it. The copy of photograph of the mobile Ex.C4 reveals that mobile is physically damaged and as such the insurer of the mobile is liable to indemnify the claim of the complainant. The complainant has placed on file e-mail sent to the insurance company as Ex.C2 but the insurance company has not paid any claim to the complainant. All the ops were liable to get indemnified the claim of complainant and not doing so clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

9.             In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the damaged mobile of the complainant with a new one of same make and model without any costs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.   All the Ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. The complainant will have to deposit the mobile in question with op no.3 against proper receipt well in time.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 23.4.2019.    

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.