Haryana

Ambala

CC/167/2017

Mukesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dashing Mobile world - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Verma

23 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 167 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 01.06.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 23.07.2018

 

 

Mukesh Kumar son of Sh. Suresh Kumar resident of House No.97-Toada, Panchkula-Haryana.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       Dashing Mobile World, Shop No.18, Opposite Indian Bank Near Jagadhri Gate, Ambala City-Haryana.

2.       Samsung Service Centre, 374-A, Prem Nagar, Near Gurudwara, Ambala City.

3.       Syska Gadget Service C/o SSK Retail Pvt. Ltd. 7-Akshay Complex, Office Dhole Patil Road, Pune-41001.

4.       National Insurance Co. Ambala City.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.             

                    

 

 

Present:        Sh. Vikas Verma, counsel for complainant.

                   OP Nos. 1 & 2 already ex parte v.o.d. 19.07.2017.

Sh. Sandeep Kashyap, counsel for OP No.3.

Ms. Suraj Reshmi Sharma, counsel for OP No.4. 

 

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased one mobile set i.e. G935 S732GB Gold (product of O.P.No.1, having IMEI No.357327072721537 for a sum of Rs. 50,625/- against bill no. 4052 from OP No.1 on 03.11.2016 with one year warranty. The said handset was insured with the OP No.3 at the time of purchased. The complainant informed the OP No.3 regarding  the damage of his mobile set on 03.04.2017 and also told the customer care executive regarding the entire incident telephonically. The OP No.3 instated of indemnity the complainant consumer as per the policy started harassing the complainant on one pretext or the other. The terms and conditions of the insurance categorically cover the damage to the mobile of the complainant. Meanwhile, another defect cropped in mobile handset for getting his snag clear the complainant approached the OP again,  but the OP instead of doing the need full asked and extraordinary amount for repair which complainant was not in position to pay hence the OP refused  to repair  the handset. The complainant was deprived of his valuable right inspite of his request and emails, the complainant has submitted the number of documents through digital transfer which were requisite by the OP No.3 but inspite of that OP No.3 fail to fulfill the contractual obligation. Because of the problems of the mobile set and attitude of Ops, complainant has to harass and suffered mental, physical and monetary loss which is a clear deficiency in service on the part of Ops as well as unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                          Registered notices issued to Op Nos.1 & 2 but none have turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.07.2017. Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that the complainant  had intimated  about incident  on dated 03.04.2017 and Leehan Retails Pvt Ltd had provides the CIN No.91704032998 to customer immediately same day. And forwarded the claim to Insurance company as the insurance cover provided by the National Insurance Company.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3. The insurance cover booklet alongwith complete kit is delivered to the customer at the time of the purchase of the insurance kit and terms also accepted by the customer at the time activation of insurance coupon in mobile.

Upon notice, OP No.4 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that liability of the OP lies in accordance with the conditions of the warranty provided by it on its product and cannot be held liable for claim falling outside the scope of warranty. “this warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear or due to misuses including  but not limited  to use in other than the normal and customary manner in accordance with the instruction for use and maintenance of the product nor does this warranty cover any failure of the product due to accident. The terms of the warranty therefore are clearly not applicable  in cases where the product has been external damages by the complainant due to activities such as damage caused by accident or any other external cause which beyond  the control of the OP. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3.                         To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.3 tendered affidavit as Annexure R/3 and closed evidence. OP No.4 tendered with documents as Annexure R-/A with documents as Annexure R-1 to R-8 and closed his evidence.

4.                          We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

 

5.                The case of complainant is that he has purchased one mobile set i.e. G935 S732GB Gold (Product of OP No.1) having IMEI No. 357327072721537 for a sum of Rs. 50,625/- against Bill no.4052 from OP No.1  on 03.11.2016 with the one year warranty which was insured with OP No.3 vide Annexure C-3. The complainant has alleged that the mobile in question has been become damage within warranty period. The complainant informed to the OP No.3 for damage of the mobile in question being insurer.  The OP No.4 has also come with the plea that the warranty become void as product has been external damages by the complainant due to activities such as damage caused by accident or any other external cause which is beyond the control of them. As per job sheet as Annexure C-10 clearly depicts that mobile handset was physically damaged i.e. LCD damage, charging issue from customer side and this document has been issued by service center/OP No.2.

On the other hand, OP No.2 has always assisted the complainant to approach the OP No.3 in connection with the insurance claim of the complainant. On the contrary, it is the OP No.3 who has rejected the claim of the complainant. The insurance claim of the complainant was however rejected by OP No.3 on account of non-receipt of documents requested by the OP No.3 from the complainant. The version of complainant duly supported by his affidavit reveals that the defects of the mobile set could not be rectified by Ops within its warranty period and even it was returned back without getting the necessary work done. Undisputedly, the screen damaged/physical damage during warranty period and OP No.3 has not paid the insured amount. At the time of arguments, the complainant has produced the estimate of damage mobile set Rs.14342.38 as assessed by the OP No.2 being service centre and prayed for to pay the above said amount with interest and further prayed for to pay the compensation for mental agony. The above said assessment has not been denied by the OP No.3 & 4.  The above said  mobile in question is insured with the OP No.3 & 4, therefore, being an insurer it is the duty of the insurance company/OP No.3 & 4 to indemnify the loss if suffered within the warranty period.

6.                          From the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clearly established that the OP No.3 & 4 are deficient in providing the services and OP No.3 & 4 have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant as per his satisfaction. Hence, it is appropriate to give the direction to the Op Nos. 3 & 4 jointly and severally to pay the assessed amount Rs.14,342.38/- to the complainant within 30 days after receiving the copy of the order failing which OP No.3 will pay the interest from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :    23.07.2018

                            

 

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)               (D.N. ARORA)

                             Member                                     President