Delhi

East Delhi

CC/332/2016

ARVIND - Complainant(s)

Versus

DIGITAL SOL - Opp.Party(s)

26 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 332/16

 

Shri Arvind Kumar Bansal

S/o Shri Shrikrishan Bansal

R/o H.No. B-155, MIG, DDA Flats

East of Loni Road, Shahdara,

Delhi – 110 093                                                          ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

1. Digital Solutions

72-A, Vijay Block

Main Vikas Marg

Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. M/s. Syska Gadget Secure

(Insurance Company)

Retail Pvt. Ltd.

7, Akshya Complex

Off Dhole Patil Road

Pune – 411 001                                                               …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 30.06.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 26.10.2018

Judgement Passed on: 30.10.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Arvind Kumar Bansal against Digital Solutions (OP-1) and M/s. Syska Gadget Secure Retail Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.       The facts in brief are that complainant Shri Arvind Kumar Bansal purchased the mobile HTC Desire 626G + Dual Sim from Digital Solutions (OP-1) for an amount of Rs. 15,400/- which was insured by M/s. Syska Gadget Secure Retail Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) vide insurance policy no. DS/VIJ/1479/15-16 dated 16.07.2015 of          Rs. 1,209/-. 

          It has been stated that on 03.02.2016, the said mobile fell down and was broken due to complainant’s daughter accident by scooty.  The complainant made a complaint to the insurance company vide complaint no. 1602034836, but M/s. Syska Gadget Secure Retail Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) denied to give the claim.  He got the mobile repaired from Shree Balaji Communication vide bill no. 738 dated 08.02.2016 on paying an amount of Rs. 4,000/-. 

          It again got damaged on 09.02.2016 due to the accident by the complainant.  He again made a complaint to M/s. Syska Gadget Secure Retail Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) which was also rejected.  This time, the amount spent on repair was of Rs. 4,500/- for which Shree Balaji Communication issued bill no. 864 of dated 19.02.2016. 

          The complainant intimated this through email to OPs regarding the damage of the mobile.  He approached to their office, but there was no response.  Thus, it has been stated that there has been deficiency on the part of OPs due to which he has suffered mental pain and suffering.  Thus, he has claimed an amount of Rs. 8,500/-with 18% interest; Rs. 50,000/- compensation towards harassment and mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses. 

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to Digital Solutions (OP-1).  None have appeared on behalf of OP-1 despite service, hence they were proceeded Ex-parte.

          In the written statement filed on behalf of M/s. Syska Gadget Secure Retail Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), they have stated that they were only the service provider and the insurance was provided by M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd.  The claim should have been lodged against M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited.

          They have further stated that claim of the complainant was rejected on the ground that mobile handset of the complainant was not in the custody of the complainant at the time of loss, but it was in the custody of his daughter.  No medical record was filed to substantiate the injury to his daughter.  Second claim was rejected on the ground that original repairs invoice (legible) of authorized service centre was not provided by the complainant.  Thus, the claim of the complainant was not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  They have denied other facts also.    

4.       In support of its case, the complainant has examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. He has got exhibited documents such as copy of retail invoice No. DS/VJ/T/1477/15-16 dated 19.07.2015 and invoice No. DS/VJ/T/1479/15-16 dated 19.07.2015 (Ex.CW-1/1 & 1/2), invoice dated 08.02.2016 and 19.02.2016 (Ex.CW-1/3 & 1/4), photograph of mobile phone (Ex.CW-1/5), copy of election card of complainant (Ex.CW-1/6) and copy of email dated 03.02.2016, 05.02.2016, 09.02.2016 and 11.02.2016 (Ex.CW-1/7).    

          In defence, OP have examined Shri Pramod Lakade, AR of M/s. Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd..  He has also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of Board Resolution dated 01.07.2017 (Ex.OP-2/1) and copy of claim repudiation letter dated 12.05.2017 (Ex.OP-2/2).

6.       We have heard the complainant and Ld. Counsel for            M/s. Syska Gadget Secure Retail Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2).  It has been argued on behalf of M/s. Syska Gadget Secure Retail Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) that they were only the service providers and the insurance was of New India Assurance Company which was not impleaded as one of the party.

          On the other hand, complainant have stated that he was not aware of the fact and have stated that the policy was given by        M/s. Syska Gadget Secure Retail Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2). 

          If the testimony of Shri Pramod Lakade of M/s. Syska Gadget Secure Retail Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) is perused, it is noticed that he has placed on record Ex.OP-2/2 showing the claim repudiation letter by the New India Assurance Company where negligence of the complainant have been shown.  This has been in respect of his second claim.

          Further, another document show that his claim has been rejected on the ground that loss mentioned was not covered under the policy.  The reason has been given as “Insufficient/wrong documentation”.  From this, it comes out that the complainant being not aware of the procedure to be followed for claiming damage under an insurance policy and is having not impleaded New India Assurance Company as one of the party, M/s. Syska Gadget Secure Retail Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) being the service provider cannot be fastened any liability.

          That being so, no deficiency on the part of M/s. Syska Gadget Secure Retail Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) can be attributed.  Further, Digital Solutions (OP-1), though being ex-parte, they are only the seller of the product.  They being only the seller of the product, they cannot be said to be deficienct in their service.  M/s. Syska Gadget Secure Retail Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), who have issued the insurance policy, though being the service provider have not been deficienct in their service, but the fact that insurance policy have been issued by the New India Assurance Company Limited who have not been impleaded as one of the party, the complainant may approach M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited to file a claim with proper documents, who may dispose off his claim within a period of three months from the date of filing.  With this, the complaint of the complainant stands dismissed/disposed off.  

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.                         

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President