Punjab

Sangrur

CC/251/2019

Hardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sandip Kumar Goyal

04 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                               Complaint No.  251

   Instituted on:    28.05.2019

                                                               Decided on:     04.10.2022

 

Hardeep Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident of Ward No.7, Near Singh Sabha Gurudwara, Moonak, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Bharti Airtel Limited, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Phase 2, New Delhi 110070 through its Chairman.

2.     Janta Mobile Care, Opposite Baba Peer, Patiala Road, Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur through its Proprietor.

3.     Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase 5,Sector 43, Gurugram, Haryana 122202 through its M.D.

4.     Insurance company of the mobile in question to be disclosed by respondent no.1.

             ….Opposite parties

For complainant         : Shri S.K.Goyal, Adv.              

For OP No1&2.         : Exparte.

For OP No.3              : Shri Nitesh Gupta, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL:    PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                          :    MEMBER

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.        

1.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging  inter-alia that one Pushpa Devi had purchased a mobile phone bearing model number Samsung N-960F-Midnight black having IMEI no. 359447/09/064588/8, 359448/09/064588/6 on 24.10.2018 for Rs.60,000/- for the complainant which was having one year warranty and the same was given to the complainant which was being used by him. It is further averred that on 10.11.2018 OP number 1 insured the above said mobile of complainant through online  from Moonak by Airtel Secure i.e. OP number 1 by using Airtel Postpaid on his mobile number 9876673773 and the mobile set was insured for the period from 10.11.2018 to 10.11.2019 for the sum of Rs.40,000/-.  The grievance of complainant is that on 6.4.2019 screen of the mobile got broken due to felling of the mobile set from the hand of the complainant and damaged, information of which was given to the OP number 1 and submitted all the required documents.  Further case of complainant is that on 9.4.2019 the complainant received a message under which he was informed that the claim has been withdrawn by the complainant, which was never withdrawn by him, as such OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to either to repair the mobile in question or to pay Rs.40,000/- being the sum insured and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.40,000/-.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs and that there is no inherent defect in the mobile set. As per the allegations made in the complaint there is physical damage caused to the handset which is not covered under warranty and due to damage caused to the handset its repair, if any, is to be done on chargeable basis. It is stated further that if there is any liability then it is of the insurance company.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             Record shows that OP number 1 and 2  were proceeded against exparte.

4.             The parties produced their respective evidence and closed thereafter.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs being beneficiary and user of the mobile phone bearing model number Samsung N-960F-Midnight black having IMEI no. 359447/09/064588/8, 359448/09/064588/6 on 24.10.2018 for Rs.60,000/- which was having one year warranty and the same was given to the complainant which was being used by him. It is further contended that on 10.11.2018 OP number 1 insured the above said mobile of complainant through online  from Moonak by Airtel Secure i.e. OP number 1 by using Airtel Postpaid on his mobile number 9876673773 and the mobile set was insured for the period from 10.11.2018 to 10.11.2019 for the sum of Rs.40,000/-. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that on 6.4.2019 screen of the mobile got broken due to falling of the mobile set from the hand of the complainant and damaged, information of which was given to the OP number 1 and submitted all the required documents but the Ops are deficient by not settling the claim of the complainant. Ex.C-2 is copy of the bill dated 24.10.2018 showing the purchase of the mobile set in question, Ex.C-3 is the copy of text message sent to the complainant by Airtel stating “continue enjoying free cloud backup, anti-virus and smartphone security against damage at no cost” and Ex.C-4 is the copy of document showing handset protection for Rs.40000/- and Ex.C-1 is the affidavit of complainant, which supports the allegations leveled in the complaint. The learned counsel for complainant has contended vehemently that the claim was never withdrawn by the complainant rather the OP at their own closed the case of complainant.   It is worth mentioning here that OP number 1 and 2 chose to remain exparte and the mobile set was insured with the subsidiary of the OP number 1 i.e. Airtel Secure.  Ex.C-5 is copy of email sent to the complainant clearly reveals that the mobile set of the complainant was damaged and claim was lodged with the OP number 1 but the claim was repudiated by the OP number 1 saying that the claim has been withdrawn by the complainant, but this fact has clearly been denied by the complainant in the affidavit Ex.C-1.   From this it clearly reveals that it is admitted fact of OP number 1 that the mobile set in question was insured for Rs.40,000/- but the claim of the complainant was rejected on flimsy grounds.  Since the complainant has successfully proved on record that the mobile set in question was insured with the OP number 1 for Rs.40,000/- and loss was covered against physical damage and in the present case, the mobile set damaged due to falling from the hand of the complainant,  as such we feel that OP number 1 is liable to pay the claim to the extent of insured value i.e. Rs.40,000/- and by not settling the claim of the complainant, it is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1.  

6.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/- being the claim amount.   We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3500/- being consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of copy of this order.

7.             This complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

8.             Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                October 4, 2022.