Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 514.
Instituted on : 01.09.2017.
Decided on : 19.03.2019.
Mehar Singh, age 27 years, son of Sh. Kulbir Singh, Resident of Village Madina, Tehsil & District Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
1. Syska Gadget Insurance Co. Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No. 80, S.No. 232, New Airport Rd, Near Symbiosis College, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra - 411014.
2. Gobind Enterprises, Shop at Gohana Adda/Stand, Rohtak-124001 (Haryana).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
Present: Sh. M.K. Vaid, Legal-Aid-counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Nikesh Kinra, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party No. 2 already exparte vide order dated 17.10.2017.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased mobile phone model No. OPPO F1s having IMEI No. 861171030993916 from the respondent No. 2 and the same was got insured at the time of purchasing through opposite party No. 1. On 21.10.2016, the said mobile phone dropped on the floor, due to this display of said mobile stopped working. Thereafter, complainant immediately informed to respondent No. 1. As per the direction of respondent No. 1, the damaged mobile and necessary documents were handed over to an agent of respondent No. 1 namely Naveen on dated 28.11.2016 within time. In this way, claim number/CIN No. 1610216170 has been issued to the complainant. After two months, complainant called on company’s toll free number and customer care executive of respondent No. 1 said to the complainant that the required documents will have to submit to the opposite party No. 1 and after one month his claim will be settled by them. But after submitting all the required documents, complainant contacted to respondent No. 1 so many time through e-mails and customer care toll free number but all in vain. That the act of opposite parties of not passing the claim amount is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay insurance claim amount of Rs.18,200/- as full value for the said phone along with interest @ 24% per annum and Rs. 70,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that the answering opposite party is only a facilitator of the Syska Gadget Secure Scheme and insurance cover provided by The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. It is further submitted that the complainant had lodged the claim as per estimate of loss with answering opposite party and the claim as per estimate of loss for amounting Rs.7084/- of the complainant was approved for repairing the mobile set in question as per terms of the insurance under Syska Gadget Secure Scheme facilitated by Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd. and insurance cover provided by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the opposite party No. 1.
3. Whereas, notice was issued opposite party No. 2 has failed to appear before the Forum despite due service, hence, opposite No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.10.2017 passed by this Forum.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence on dated 23.08.2018. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 made a statement that the reply already filed be read as affidavit in evidence, tendered documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/2 and closed his evidence on dated 06.12.2018.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. Opposite party no.1 in his preliminary objection in para no.4 has mentioned that the answering opposite party is only the facilitator of the product Syska Gadjet Secure and the Insurance cover is provided by the Oriental Insurance Company. But the opposite party No.1 has not mentioned any policy number or has not placed on record any document to prove the fact that the mobile set was insured through Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. As per letter Ex.R1/1, only detail estimate has been mentioned by Pacetel Systems Pvt. Ltd. and policy number has not been mentioned on this document. Hence the opposite party no.1 is liable to compensate the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party No.1 shall refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.18200/-(Rupees eighteen thousand two hundred only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.01.09.2017 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite party No.1 at the time of receiving the payment from the opposite party No.1.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.03.2019.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member
