DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.553 of 21-11-2016

Decided on 09-05-2017

Beant Kaur W/o Sukhpal Singh R/o VPO Kalalwala, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Gionee, U.T Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Post 363-64, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its M.D/D.M/Incharge.

2.M/s Bajrang Enterprises, Shop No.5 Near Water Tank, Subash Market, Bathinda, through its Proprietor.

3.Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd. D3137, Oberoi Garden Estates, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai, through its M.D/D.M/Incharge.

4.Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ist Floor Near Midha Telecom Near Gole Diggi, Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.Japneet Kapil, Advocate.

Opposite party Nos.1 and 2: Not Summoned.

Opposite party Nos.3 and 4: Ex-parte.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Beant Kaur (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Gionee and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she purchased one Gionee S Plus mobile handset for Rs.16,200/- vide bill dated 23.5.2016 from opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 is manufacturer and opposite party No.4 is the insurance company of the mobile handset and opposite party No.3 is the service centre of opposite party No.4.

3. It is alleged that opposite party No.2 made the insurance of the mobile handset vide policy invoice No.R-00116 dated 23.5.2016 and charged Rs.1749/- for insurance. As per the terms of the policy, in case of any kind of damage to the mobile handset, opposite party No.4 was to replace the mobile handset with new one or to pay its total price.

4. It is further alleged that at the time of purchase of the mobile handset, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 provided sufficient warranty on the mobile handset. In the month of August 2016, the mobile handset fell down and totally damaged. The complainant approached opposite party No.2, it directed her to approach opposite party No.3. Accordingly, she approached the service centre i.e. opposite party No.3 and documents required by it were duly fulfilled by her. Thereafter opposite party No.3 kept the mobile handset with it and directed the complainant to come after some time and charged Rs.810/- from her without any cause and reason. Opposite party No.3 also issued job sheet dated 20.8.2016. After that the complainant many times approached opposite party Nos.3 and 4 and requested them to replace the mobile handset with new one, but to no effect. Opposite party No.3 returned the damaged mobile handset to the complainant without any reason and told her that she cannot claim the insurance.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. She has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment etc. and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and replacement of the mobile handset with new one or refund of its price i.e. Rs.16,200/- and Rs.810/- charged by opposite party No.3. Hence, this complaint.

5. Notice was only issued to opposite party Nos.3 and 4. None appeared on behalf of them. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.

6. Complainant was asked to produce evidence.

7. In support of her claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 30.1.2017, (Ex.C1); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C2); photocopy of receipt, (Ex.C3); photocopies of bills, (Ex.C4 and Ex.C5); photocopy of job sheet, (Ex.C6) and closed the evidence.

8. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully.

9. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above.

10. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

11. Ex.C4, is invoice, which proves that the complainant got her mobile handset insured on payment of Rs.1749/- on 23.5.2016 and Ex.C5, proves that he purchased the mobile handset on that very date for Rs.16,200/-. Ex.C6, is the job sheet issued by opposite party No.3. As per the complainant, opposite party No.3 has returned the mobile handset without doing the needful. Of-course, the complainant has claimed replacement of the mobile handset or refund of its price, but she has not brought on record terms and conditions of the policy to prove entitlement of replacement of the mobile handset with new one or refund of its price. Opposite party Nos.3 and 4 have not come forward to contest the claim of the complainant.

12. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.3 and 4. Opposite party Nos.3 and 4 are directed to settle the claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the insurance.

13. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

14. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

15. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:- (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    09-05-2017 President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member