DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 190
Instituted on: 09.05.2017
Decided on: 23.10.2017
Mohammad Irfan son of Mohammad Tufal r/o Mohalla Makbarian Wala Inside Sirhandi Gate, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. Golden Gift and Antique House, College Road, Malerkotla through its proprietor/ partner.
2. Appsdaily Solutions Pvt. Limited through its Managing Director, Regd. Office: First Floor, Hariya Dream Park Off Mira Bhayandar Road near D-Mart, Mumbai-401107.
3. Apps Daily Contact Center, Address : Near Hot Chop, Kaula Park, SCO-15, Ist Floor, Sangrur. ….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri Rohit Jain , Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY No.1 : Shri S.M.Goyal, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2 : Exparte
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3 : Given up.
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Mohammad Irfan, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased one Samsung SM-J700F from Op no.1 on 12.01.2016 for Rs.14,400/- which was insured with OP no.2 through OP no.1 and complainant paid Rs.1249/- as premium to the OP no.1 on 12.01.2016 in cash. On 03.08.2016 the said mobile fell down from the pocket of the complainant and display screen of the same got cracks and camera glass was also broken . The said phone became dead and no service call was made through the above said phone and complainant immediately lodged complaint with OP no.2 through OP no.1 and complainant was asked to deposit Rs.720/- with the center. On 5.8.2016 complainant visited the OP no.3 and paid Rs.720/- alongwith mobile set and all necessary documents and OP no.3 issued job sheet dated 05.08.2016. The complainant was surprised when he received e-mail on 18.08.2016 from OP no.2 that claim of the complainant is not tenable under terms and conditions of the scheme. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to repair the mobile or to refund the price of the mobile set as per terms and condition of insurance policy,
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 11.08.2017 and complainant had given up OP no.3 on the same day.
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.1249/- to the OP no.1 on account of insurance of the same. It is denied that on the insurance of the OP no.1 the complainant got the mobile set in question insured rather the complainant himself requested to get the same insured. It is denied that the complainant lodged the complaint through OP no.1. 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-8 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered an affidavit Ex.OP1/1 and closed evidence.
5. The complainant's grievance in this case is that despite having insurance of his mobile set the OPs no.2 and 3 had not refunded the entire consideration amount of Rs.14400/- as per its policy.
6. It is an admitted fact on record that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question for an amount of Rs.14,400/- from OP no.1 which was insured from OP no.2 through OP no.1 by paying an amount of Rs.1249/- as premium to the OP no.1 which is evident from retail invoice Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7. The complainant has also stated in his complaint that on 05.08.2016 complainant visited the OP no.3 and paid Rs.720/- alongwith necessary documents as demanded vide email Ex.C-5 and thereafter OP no.3 issued job sheet dated 5.8.2016 which is Ex.C-2 on record. The complainant's specific case is that OPs no.2 and 3 sent a email on 18.08.2016 wherein it has been mentioned that " it has been observed that your claim is not tenable under the terms and conditions of Protection plan/ scheme. Upon preliminary scrutiny of the device it is observed that handset is intentionally damaged and the company shall be returning your device without any repair and will be refunding the amount of deductible collected from your without any interest". Further, the complainant has specifically stated that OPs neither returned the mobile set unrepaired nor refunded the amount of deductible collected from him as per email of the OPs Ex.C-4. From the perusal of entire record it is clear that the mobile set in question is still in possession of the OPs. The OP no.2 has not come forward to contest the case of the complainant rather they chosen to remain exparte. As such evidence produced by the complainant against the Op no.2 has gone unrebutted on record.
7. For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint and direct the OP no.2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.14400/- as cost of the mobile set in question. We further direct the OP no.2 to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- being harassment and litigation expenses.
8. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. Announced
October 23, 2017
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member Member President
