DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                  Complaint no. 256                                                                                        

                                                                  Instituted on:    05.06.2017                                                                                

                                                                  Decided on:     09.10.2017

Azam Pervej son of Shoukat Ali r/o House No.312, Ward No.10, Rahat Colony, Kamal Cinema Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

1.       Golden Gift and Antique House, College Road, Malerkotla through its proprietor/ partner.

2.      M/s Apps Daily, Solutions Pvt. Limited Ist Floor HARYA Dream Park, Off Meera Bhayander Road, Near D Mart, Meera Road, Mumbai MH  401107 through its acting partner.  

                                              ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri  Mohd. Izhar , Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1            :      Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2           :     Exparte

Quorum

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ORDER:  

Sarita Garg, Member

1.             Azam Pervej, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased one I phone 5-S from Op no.1  which was insured by the OP no.1 on behalf of OP no.2 and complainant paid Rs.1749/- as premium to the OP no.2 in cash. Due to damage of mobile screen in the month of  March 2017 mobile set  was taken by the OP no.1 for its repairs.  The Op no.2 demanded Rs.1500/- from the complainant for packing and sending the mobile set for repairs which was given online payment to OP no.2 in April 2017.  A number of complaints were registered with OP no.2.  The mobile set was returned to the complainant unrepaired alongwith letter from the Op no.2  of the same damage condition. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund Rs.20000/- plus Rs.1500/- as charted extra for packing and sending  the mobile set to OP no.2 alongwith interest @18% per annum till its realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no.2 did not appear and as such OP no.2 was proceeded exparte on 17.07.2017.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.1,  it is admitted by the OP no.1 that the complainant purchased the said mobile set  and paid Rs.1749/- on account of insurance of the same. It is denied that  the OP insured the above said I phone on behalf of the OP no.2 as an agent. It is stated that on the request of the complainant the OP got the set insured from OP no.2. It is denied that the mobile set was handed over to the OP for its repair. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered an affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             The complainant's grievance in this case is that despite having insurance of his mobile set the OP no.2 had not refunded the entire consideration amount  of Rs.20,000/- as per  its policy.

6.             The complainant has stated in his complaint that   he had got insured his mobile set  from OP no.2 and paid  a sum of Rs.1749/- as premium to the OP no.1. The complainant has also stated in his complaint that  OP no.2 demanded an amount of Rs.1500/- for packing and sending the mobile set which was given by online payment  in April, 2017. Surprisingly,  the complainant has not produced on record any receipt/ record regarding  online payment of Rs.1500/- to the OP no.2. Further, the complainant has  specifically stated that  OP no.2 returned the  mobile set  unrepaired alongwith a letter but  here again the complainant has not produced on record copy of said letter for perusal.

7.             From the perusal of the record we also find that the complainant has not produced copy of any insurance policy alongwith its terms and conditions for perusal.  Moreover,  the complainant has claimed  the entire consideration amount of the mobile set but he has not proved  by producing  any expert report  that the mobile set is  totally  damaged  or it has any manufacturing defect. The complainant has also not produced on record copy of repair estimate of the mobile set in question from any mechanic or any engineer.  

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that the complainant has totally failed to prove his case. So, we dismiss the complaint. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                                                Announced

                October 9, 2017

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)      ( Sarita Garg)        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                

             Member                    Member                         President