Haryana

Ambala

CC/302/2017

Robin Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fones 4U - Opp.Party(s)

Akash Garg

10 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                                    Complaint case no.        :  302 of 2017

                                                                    Date of Institution         :  21.08.2017

                                                                    Date of decision   :  10.07.2018

 

 

Shri Robin Kumar S/o Sh. Parveen Kumar R/o Village Ugala  Tehsil, Barara, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

 

1. Fones 4U #6212, D.C.Road Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt through  its  authorized signatory.
2. Apps Daily Solutions Pvt Ltd. Shop No.315, C Wing Shanti Shopping Centre, Mira Road East, Near Railway Station Mumbai, Maharasthra-401107 through its authorized signatory.

 

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties  

 

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

                             Sh.Pushpender Kumar, Member.

                            

                            

Present:       Sh. Akash Garg, counsel for the complainant.

Ops proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 04.12.2017.

 

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased OPPO FLS Mobile Phone bearing IMEI No.861171034516671 for amounting Rs. 18,000/- vide bill no.3039 dated 23.08.2016 f from OP No.1 and got insured the mobile phone on the same day with  OP No.2 after paying Rs. 1749/-.  On 17.02.2017 the said device was accidently damaged and accordingly complainant lodged the claim before OP No.2 and OP No.2 vide mail dated 18.02.2017 send the claim intimation no. CIN AND-180217-197862533 to complainant and OP No.2 vide mail dated 20.02.2017 asked to complainant to deposit the deductible processing fee of INR 1500/- and on the same day complainant deposited the above said required amount and vide mail dated 20.02.2017 OP No.2 received the deductible of INR 1500/- on the assurance of OP No.1. In response to the mail sent by complainant corresponding mail dated 02.03.2017 and 06.03.2017 was received by complainant however complainant was also informed about the repair process and about receiving of device very soon vide mail dated 10.03.2017.  Vide mail dated 16.03.2017 complainant was informed about incompleteness of certain documents and without and explanation and information in that regard however complainant tried to contact OP No.2 but no proper response was given and now vide mail dated 2.5.2017 complainant received the information about dispatching of unrepaired handset which clearly shows about deficient of services.  Due to the above said act and conduct of Ops complainant suffered a lot of mental harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notices issued to Ops No. 1 & 2 but none have appeared on behalf of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and they have proceeded ex-parte v.o.d. 04.12.2017.  

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-13 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard counsels for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased one Vivo Mobile set bearing IMEI No.861171034516671 vide bill no.3039 dated 23.08.2016 of Rs. 18,000/- from OP No.1 with one year warranty and also insured the mobile set with OP No.2 after paying Rs.1,749. The complainant has come with the plea that the on 17.02.2017 the mobile phone got accidental damaged during the subsistence of insurance period, which was valid for one year. The complainant further alleged that he has lodged the claim and complete all the formalities but the Ops have not settled the claim. The complainant has already sent e-mails to the opposite party no.2 on 18.02.2017, he requested to OPs to repair his mobile. The OPs duly replied the e-mails Annexure C-6 through E-mails dated. Thereafter, receiving the abovesaid reply, the complainant again sent the   e-mails many e-mails to the OP No. 2 and OP No.2 also replied the vide Annexure C-7 to C-18 for do the needful. It is clear that correspondence regarding repaired of the mobile in question used by the complainant, has been made between the parties through various e-mails. As per Annexure C-13, OP has returned the unrepaired handset to the complainant on 02.05.2017. Thus, the OPs have failed to rectify or not giving insured amount of the mobile to the complainant.  The complainant had purchased the mobile in question after spending huge amount Rs. 18,000/- and mobile in question become defective within warranty period and the OPs have failed to rectify the defect in the same. As per Annexure C-5 i.e. Plan acceptance Form (PAF) which mentioned that Apps Daily App complete mobile security features including antivirus, Antitheft, Backup Pivacy, theft robbery and burglary, accidental damage e.g. dropped devices, cracked screens, Liquid damage e.g. Rain Damage Split Water, Damage due to Fire or lightning strike and all defects covers under manufacturer warranty, including cost of parts and this document has been issued by OP No.2. Therefore, it is very well established that the phone was not in working condition. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a benevolent social legislation as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in their judgements from time to time and is aimed at providing for better protection of the interests of the consumers as defined in the preamble to the Act itself but despite that the insurance companies are having tendencies to avoid the genuine claims on one pretext or the other and this is main reason of increasing of litigation between the insured and insurance companies. In the present complaint, the complainant got insured his mobile from OP No2. Perusal of the case file reveals that the total cost of the mobile handset was Rs.18,000 /- and the complainant had also paid a sum of Rs.1,500/- for repairing the mobile set during warranty period. It is also proved on the file that the OP No. 2 has received the insurance premium from the complainant and mobile in question has been accidental damaged during insurance period. Due to defect in the mobile, the complainant has been deprived of to use the hand set despite spending handsome amount. In the present case, the Ops despite registered notices not pursued the case and they were proceeded against ex-parte. As such, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant. We are view that Ops have not settled the claim of the complainant inspite of taking the premium from the complainant which tantamounts deficient in service on the part of the OPs.

6.                In view of above discussion, the insurance company has not paid the insurance amount of handset till today, therefore, the insurance company is deficient in service and Ops are liable to pay insurance amount. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby allowed against the Ops with cost and Ops are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To pay the invoice amount Rs. 18,000/-  as per Annexure C-4  along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization subject to return the old mobile along with accessories  to the OPs.

(ii)     To pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation.

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:10.07.2018

 

                               

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)               (D.N. ARORA)

                             Member                                   President