ORDER                                                   Date:

            Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member

The complainant has purchased a mobile phone make Panasonic from OP1, vide Invoice No. 37669 dated 05/08/15 for Rs. 12500/-.  OP 2 had provided an Insurance Cover against theft/damage etc. and had charged a premium of Rs. 1299/-.  On 28/08/15 the Mobile set fell down due to accident and its screen was damaged.  The complainant registered a claim with OP2 on 29/08/2015 inrespect of the aforesaid damage and received an e-mail whereby he was asked to send the handset along with documentsat their service station i.e. OP3.  Accordingly on 01/09/2015 the complainant handed over the hand set and the relevant documents to OP 3 vide Inovice No. 192.  He was informed that the hand set would be repaired within 15 days.  After 15 days when the complainant sought an enquiry he was told that the repair will take another week.  The complainant again contacted OP3 and was asked to again send the documents of the hand set as OP3 had uploaded a wrong form of the complainant’s claim.  The complainant obliged and duly sent the required documents.  He contacted the OPs after the required period of 15 days followed by enquiries week after week.  The handset was delivered to him on 03/11/2015 after a sum of Rs. 570/- was claimed as service charges.  However, the complainant found out that the Hand set was not working and on informing OP2 and OP3 he was told to contact OP4.  The complainant contacted OP4 who refused to carry out the repairs and claimed that there was a violation of the warranty clause as the Hand Set has been got repaired from a centre other than the authorized centre of OP4.  The complainant again contacted OP2 who got the hand set collected from him on 06/11/2015 with the promise that it will be repaired within 07 days.  The grievance of the complainant is that he had been repeatedly following up with OP1, OP2, OP3 but they had been failed to respond.  The hand

set continuous to be with them and has not been delivered back, repaired or otherwise.  This despite the fact that the complainant has served a legal notice which was neither responded to nor complied with.Hence the complaint.

A notice of the complainant was served on the OPs by registered post.  The OPs failed to appear and were ordered to be proceeded with ex parte.

In the evidence the complainant filed his own affidavit.  He has corroborated the contents of the complaint in his affidavit.  The affidavit filed by the complaint has remained unrebutted.  We therefore, hold the OPs deficient in rendering service to the complainant.  We accordingly, direct the OP2 as under :-

1.       Pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 12500/- as cost of the mobile hand set.

2.       Pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as pain and agony suffered by him which will include the cost of litigation.     

This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @ 12% shall be payable on the entire above mentioned amount till realisation.  Copy of this order is sent to all the parties free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on this ……………......

          MEMBER                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT