Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/651

Tapinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Golden Gift - Opp.Party(s)

H.S.Grewal ADv.

20 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 651 of 03.11.2015

Date of Decision            :   20.05.2016

Tapinder Singh son of Harlabh Singh resident of House No.482, Street No.1, Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Golden Gift and Antique House, College Road, Malerkotla, Punjab-148023.

2.Apps Daily Insurance, UB Insurance Associates, S-204 & 205, Suraj Plaza, 196/8, 25^th Cross 8^th Main, Jaya Nagar, 3^rd Block, Bangalore-560011 Karnataka.

3.Cell Tech India, 24-A, Suraya Shopping, Complex, National Road, Bhai Bala Chowk, Ludhiana.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS. BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        Sh.Ajay Chawla, Advocate     

For OPs                         :        Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant Sh.Tapinder Singh filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) against Ops by claiming that he purchased one new brand HTC desire-816-G model mobile phone for an amount of Rs.18,200/- vide invoice No.576 having EMEI No.366064063948521 from OP1. On allurement of OP1, complainant got the said mobile phone insured with OP2. In case of theft or damage to the mobile phone, liability was of OP2 as insurer. On additional payment of Rs.1299/- to OP1, the complainant got the mobile in question insured vide invoice No.577 of date 18.4.2015. After use of the mobile phone for two months, the same suddenly fell on 20.7.2015 and the touch screen of the same stood broken. Thereafter, complainant approached OP1, who sent him to OP3, the service centre. Complainant gave the mobile phone to OP3 on 21.7.2015. Report of damage was brought to the knowledge of Op2. OP3 promised to make the necessary repair of the damaged phone and he gave service report of date 21.7.2015 after inspecting the mobile phone. Touch screen, side key and display of the mobile phone were damaged, but till filing of the complaint, OP2 have not passed the claim in favour of the complainant. OP3 has not got replaced the damaged parts of the mobile phone. It is claimed that mobile phone is still lying with OP3. Due to non availability of the mobile phone, the complainant is facing lot of stress and tension because he could not perform his duty efficiently as a Government employee being Head Constable in Police Department. Despite numerous visits by the complainant to the office of OP3, mobile phone after repair not handed over and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on  the  part of Ops, prayer made for directions to OPs to repair the mobile phone and pay compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @12% P.A. Litigation expense of Rs.33,000/- also claimed.

2.                Notice of the complaint issued to the OPs, but they did not appear despite sending registered notices and as such, they were proceeded against ex-parte.

3.                Though, written statement on behalf of OP2 was received by post, but none appeared for OP2, despite grant of numerous opportunities and as such, OP2 was also proceeded against ex-parte.

4.                In the written reply of OP2 received through post, it is mentioned that complainant has not submitted the original claim documents as required by the insurance company and as such, claim could not be processed. It is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP2 and request made to this Forum to apprise the complainant to submit the documents as required by the insurance company.

5.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

6.                Written arguments not submitted by the complainant. But oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

7.                Complainant has produced on record invoice Ex.C1 for establishing that he purchased the mobile in question from OP1 on 18.4.2015 for consideration of Rs.18,200/-. Another invoice Ex.C2 also produced to show that mobile in question was got insured with OP2. So, certainly mobile in question after purchase was got insured by the complainant with OP2.

8.                Service report Ex.C3 of date 21.7.2015 is there to show that mobile phone faced problem of dead touch broken + side key + display. Further, in the warranty column, it is mentioned that it is a case of insurance. So, the produced documentary evidence enough to establish as if the mobile in question faced problems of dead touch broken and of broken side key etc. As the mobile in question was got insured, but despite that the same on submission with OP3 for repair has not been returned back and as such,  deficiency  in  service  on the part of the service centre is there because the service centre neither has repaired the mobile phone nor has returned the same. So, certainly the complainant has suffered harassment, owing to which, he is entitled for compensation. As mobile phone in question has not returned by the OP3 even after filing of the complaint and as such, fitness of things warrants that for preventing further harassment of the complainant, complaint should be allowed in terms that OP2 and OP3 should be made to pay the price of the mobile in question. After going through invoice Ex.C1, it is made out that liability of repair of the mobile phone will be that of service centre and not of seller i.e. Op1. In view of this endorsement on Ex.C1 itself, OP1 being seller cannot be held liable for any loss to the insured mobile phone in question. Rather, liability of service centre as well as insurer will remain and as such, complaint deserves to be allowed accordingly.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte in terms that Op2 and OP3 will pay Rs.18,200/-, price of hand set in question, to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1500/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP2 and OP3. OP1 is not liable at all. Compliance of directions of compensation and litigation costs be also made by OP2 and OP3 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Liability of Op2 and OP3 to pay above referred amounts will be joint and several. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. 

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                                            

                      (Babita)                                     (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:20.05.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.