BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.171 of 2017

Date of Instt. 01.06.2017

Date of Decision:13.03.2018

Neel Kamal Soni W/o Sh. Avnish Soni R/o H. No.16, New Harbans Nagar Extension, Near Basti Guzan, Jalandhar

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd., Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk Jalandhar through its Managing Director.

2. Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd., C/o Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd. Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Managing Director.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Gurvinder Arora, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

OP No.1 and 2 exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased one mobile phone of LG G2 from OP No.1 on 13.09.2015 for Rs.28,000/- and the complainant had got financed the said mobile from Bajaj Finance and the complainant had already paid the full and final payment to her finance company i.e. Bajaj Finance Ltd.

2. That the OP No.2 is an Insurance Company and both of OPs made representation to the complainant at the time of purchase of the above said mobile that the said mobile should be got insured and as per the representation made by OP, the complainant got the insurance of OP on 13.09.2015 and the complainant also paid the full and final premium of the said insurance policy on the same day, which was valid for one year. That unfortunately, mobile phone of the complainant was damaged due to accidentally fall on ground and it was damaged and the complainant brought the said phone to the notice of the OP and OPs told the complainant to deposit the said phone and OP No.1 also took Rs.500/- from the complainant and deposited the said mobile with OP No.1 on 09.08.2016. The receipt has been also issued by the OPs regarding the receipt of the phone, which is attached herewith. The OP made representation to the complainant that phone will be either returned to the complainant after repair or in the alternative, the complainant will be paid the insurance amount of the said phone. However, the complainant requested OP number of times to get the phone repaired or to pay the amount of the insurance. However, despite various requests and reminders, the said phone has not been returned by both of OP and neither any insurance amount has been paid to the complainant. It is worth mentioning here that the OP No.2 was having an office in the premises of OP No.1 and at the instance and representation made by both of OPs, the complainant had got insured the above said phone at the time of the purchase. That no doubt, the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice and the above said act on their part tantamounts to deficiency of services for which the complainant is entitled to damages, subject to harassment to the complainant and even legal notice was also served to the OP, but remained in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the OP may be directed to repair the mobile phone and returned to the complainant or in alternative, the insurance amount of the mobile i.e. Rs.28,000/- be ordered to refund to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental tension and harassment to the complainant.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service, both the OPs did not come present and as such, both the OPs were proceeded against exparte.

4. In order to prove the exparte claim of the complainant, complainant herself tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C-1 Invoice, Ex.C-2 Job Sheet, Ex.C-3 Legal Notice, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 Postal Receipts and then evidence of the complainant closed by order on 04.12.2017.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6. Precisely, the case set by the complainant is only that he purchased a mobile phone LG G2 from OP No.1 on 13.09.2015 for Rs.28,000/- and accordingly, the complainant has brought on the file photostat copy of the Invoice Ex.C-1 and further alleged that the said phone was got insured with OP No.2 after making a payment of full and final premium on the same date i.e. 13.09.2015 and the insurance policy was valid for one year, but after few months, the mobile phone of the complainant was damaged due to accidentally fall on ground and he approached the OP No.1, who get deposited the said mobile and also took Rs.500/- from the complainant with the assurance that the said mobile will be returned to the complainant after repair or in the alternative, the complainant will be paid the insurance amount of the said phone, but despite repeated request, neither repaired the phone nor make a payment of the insurance amount and as such, the instant complaint filed with the request to direct the OP to return the mobile phone or its price as per insurance alongwith compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

7. Outrightly, it is established on the file that the plea taken by the complainant that he got insured the mobile phone with OP No.2 and make the payment of the premium is only oral version of the complainant and there is not even single document brought on the file by the complainant, whereby he deposited the premium amount of the insurance or even the insurance policy is not brought on the file, the mobile phone was deposited by the complainant with the Service Centre, who issued the Job Sheet, which is exhibited by the complainant herself as Ex.C-2 and from the said Job Sheet, it is not established that the said Job Sheet is issued by any Insurance Company rather the charged amount of Rs.500/- has been got deposited from the complainant at the time of issuing a Job Sheet. Admittedly, as per version of the complainant, the mobile phone is still lying with the OP No.2 is accepted because the version of the complainant is not controverted by the OP No.2 by appearing in the Forum. Non-return of the mobile phone either after repair or without repair is apparently a deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.2 and as such, the OP No.2 is required to return the said mobile after repairing the same on charges basis.

8. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted qua OP No.2 and accordingly, the OP No.2 is directed to return the repaired mobile set of the complainant after getting repair charges and further OP No.2 is directed to pay compensation for harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.4000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                                                         Harvimal Dogra                                              Karnail Singh

13.03.2018                                                                Member                                                           President