Haryana

Karnal

CC/363/2018

Gulab Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dinesh Jain Authorized Agent Of Complete Secure Solutions C/o Green Dust Electronic - Opp.Party(s)

Balraj Pal

17 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No. 363 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt. 20.12.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 17.09.2019

Gulab Singh son of Shri Bir Singh age about 31 years resident of village Dadwana, Tehsil Dhand, District Kaithal.

                                                                                                                         …….Complainant

                                        Versus

1. Dinesh Jain Authorized Agent of complete Secure Solutions c/o Green Dust Electronic, SCO-355, Mugal Canal Market, Karnal, Tehsil and District Karnal.

2. Blue Star Sales shop no.16, Mobile Market, Opp. Bus Stand, Karnal-132001.

3. Prashant Mendiratta Legal Representative Complete Secure Solution, C-127, Phase-8, Industrial Area Mohali, Punjab.

4. Atul Sahai, General Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCO no.48-49, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh-160017.

5. Samsung Authorized Service Centre Prop. Deep Associates, shop no.20,21,22, Asa Ram Market, Model Town, Karnal-132001.

 

                                                                         …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Balraj Pal Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Naveen Khattarpal Advocate for OP no.4.

                  Opposite parties no.1 to 3 and 5 exparte.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant purchased a Samsung J-7 Pro 64 GB Black colour Mobile bearing IMEI no.358674/08/643744/9, serial no.RZ8JA12NKDW from OP no.2 on 17.01.2018 paid amount of Rs.19,900/-. The complainant also purchased the insurance of its mobile from Dinesh Jain Authorized Agent of complete secure Solutions, r/o Green Dust, Electronics, SCO-355 Mugal Canal Market, Karnal and paid Rs.1600/-. On 17.01.2018 the authorized dealer complete secure Solutions provide the coupon number of policy CSSN12990234 and coupon code PP1299 of mobile policy and assured to the complainant that the policy will be reached at the home of the complainant by registered post within a short time. On 19.10.2018 when the complainant was going to his motorcycle for his personal work, the complainant met with a minor accident and the complainant fell down from his motorcycle and the mobile display of phone of the complainant had also got damaged. On the same day complainant approached the OP no.1 and requested for repair of his mobile and OP no.1 asked the complainant to make a complaint on company toll free no.18001371379 to get the mobile insurance claim. The complainant registered a complaint of his mobile damage and a complaint number CSSN2257242 also be given by the company. On 19.10.2018 Mr. Dinesh Jain authorized dealer of Compete Secure Solutions i.e. OP no.1 asked the complainant to repair his mobile from the Samsung Service Centre and after the repair of mobile give the mobile repair bill or estimate, ID, Document and Mobile phone box and accessories to him so that it can be sent to company for mobile insurance claim. On 20.10.2018 the complainant approached to Samsung Service Centre to repair the same but Deep Associates i.e. OP no.5 refused to repair the mobile phone and also gave the estimate letter of sum of Rs.10,963/- for repair the mobile phone. On 20.10.2018 the complainant approached to OP no.1 make assure to complainant that he gave the mobile phone and estimate letter, ID of the complainant and mobile phone and OP no.1 send its in the company and company repair his mobile and if under any situation mobile is not to be repaired the company will give the amount of mobile or the new mobile of same model will be given within 15-20 days and on the same time the complainant gave his mobile and all document and mobile accessories of mobile to OP no.1. After 20 days the complainant requested to OP no.1 to return mobile phone but OP no.1 assured to the complainant that mobile coming in shortly and OP no.1 give the mobile insurance policy no.231200/48/2018/6805 to the complainant that mobile phone and original insurance policy both are coming in shortly within 2-3 days. The complainant also sent registered legal notice to OPs on 29.11.2018 but neither OPs gave reply to the notice nor pay any heed to the request of the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OPs no.1, 2, 5 and 3 did not appear and proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.02.2019 and 26.03.2019 respectively.

3.             OP no.4 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction; cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that after getting intimation regarding damage of mobile from complainant, OP no.4 immediately appointed an IRDA approved independent surveyor Mr. Ravinder Dhingra for survey and loss assessment of mobile, who submitted his detailed survey report dated 6.12.2018. As per his survey report as per terms and conditions of the policy, after making necessary depreciation net liability of OP no.4 comes to Rs.9593/- with salvage and salvage value of mobile is Rs.4000/-. After receiving survey report, OP no.4 sent letter dated 31.12.2018 and letter dated 22.01.2019 to complainant to deposit the salvage and intimated that company is ready to pay the payable claim amount of Rs.9593/- assessed by surveyor and if complainant not willing to deposit damage mobile, after making necessary deduction of salvage company is ready to settle the claim in Rs.5593/- but complainant has not replied the letters, so present complaint is premature as claim of the complainant is pending with OP and no final action has been taken on the claim of complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.4. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and closed the evidence on 12.06.2019.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Mahavir Singh Sr. Divisional Manager Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 02.09.2019.

6.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant purchased a mobile Samsung J-7 Pro 64 GB Black colour from OP no.2 and also purchased an insurance policy from OP no.1 and the same was insured with OP no.4. On 19.01.2018 when complainant went to his motorcycle the complainant met with a minor accident and the complainant fell down from his motorcycle and display of the mobile phone of the complainant had also got damaged. The mobile phone in question was deposited with the OP no.1 and the same is also lying with OP no.1. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs so many times and requested to repair the damaged mobile phone but OPs neither repair the mobile set nor replace the same and insurance company also has also not gave the insurance claim.

8.             On the other hand, the case of the OP no.4 is that after getting intimation regarding damage of mobile from complainant, OP no.4 immediately appointed an IRDA approved independent surveyor Mr. Ravinder Dhingra for survey and loss assessment of mobile, who submitted his detailed survey report dated 6.12.2018. As per his survey report as per terms and conditions of the policy, after making necessary depreciation net liability of OP no.4 comes to Rs.9593/- with salvage and salvage value of mobile is Rs.4000/-. After receiving survey report, OP no.4 sent letter dated 31.12.2018 and letter dated 22.01.2019 to complainant to deposit the salvage and intimated that company is ready to pay the payable claim amount of Rs.9593/- assessed by surveyor and if complainant not willing to deposit damage mobile, after making necessary deduction of salvage company is ready to settle the claim in Rs.5593/- but complainant has not replied the letters, so present complaint is premature as claim of the complainant is pending with OP and no final action has been taken on the claim of complainant.

9.             Admittedly, the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from OP no.2 and the same was insured with the insurance company. It is also admitted that the mobile set in question was damaged in the accident. As per version of OP no.4 the net liability comes to Rs.9593/- with the salvage and salvage value of the mobile is Rs.4000/- and OP no.4 is ready to pay the claim of Rs.9593/- as assessed by the surveyor of OP no.4 if complainant deposit salvage with him.

10.            On the other hand, the version of the complainant is that mobile set in question is in the custody of the OP no.1, to rebut the said plea of complainant OP no.1 did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Hence the plea has taken by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. As per the insurance cover the sum assured is Rs.19,900/- and complainant paid premium in this regard. As per surveyor report the surveyor of the OP no.4 assessed Rs.9593/- the value of the mobile set in question so the complainant is entitled for the same.

11.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.9593/- as assessed by the surveyor. We further the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. All the OPs are jointly and severally liable. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:17.09.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member