Punjab

Moga

CC/17/23

Vikas Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Grover Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Chamkaur Singh Brar

06 Sep 2017

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 23 of 2017

                                                                                      Instituted on: 27.02.2017

                                                                                      Decided on: 06.09.2017

 

Vikas Kumar, son of Mukand Lal, resident of H. No.3, Kot Kapura Road, Improvement Trust Colony, Moga.

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       Grover Mobiles, Shop no.1, J&K Bank Building, Old Court Road, Moga, through its Authorized Person.

 

2.       Apple Store and Service Centre, Near Cremika Ice Cream, Kipps Market, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.

 

3.       Appsdaily Insurance Company, Main Bazar, Opposite Town Hall, Moga, through its Authorized Person Ankush Vadhva.

 

4.       Appsdaily Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 1^st Floor, Harya Dream Park, Off Mira Bhayandar Road, Near D Mart, Mira Road, Mumbai MH. ZIP no.401107.

 

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

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

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Chamkaur Singh Brar, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Opposite parties ex-parte.

                  

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Grover Mobiles, Shop no.1, J&K Bank Building, Old Court Road, Moga, through its Authorized Person and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to give new mobile set Apple iphone 7 to the complainant. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.30,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deems fit and proper be granted to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 4.11.2016, the complainant has purchased iPhone 7 Mobile IMEI no.359154075404592 for Rs.60,000/- vide bill no.16 from opposite party no.1. At the time of selling said mobile, opposite party no.1 gave one year warranty. On 06.11.2016, the complainant got insured the said mobile phone from opposite party no.3 by paying Rs.6000/-. At the time of selling said insurance policy opposite party no.3 fully assured complainant that now set is fully insured and in case any defect, damage is raised in said mobile set then the company will get it repair/replace on its own costs and said insurance policy is valid till 5.11.2017. On 14.11.2016, when complainant was going to his office on bike then he met with an accident and display of said mobile was broken and said mobile phone was also damaged due to which on 15.11.2016 complainant approached opposite party no.3 and disclosed each and every fact, then opposite party no.3 retained the said mobile set with it and directed complainant to come again after 15 days. On 22.11.2016, when again complainant approached opposite party no.3 then opposite party no.3 told complainant that mobile handset has been badly damaged and is not in repairing condition, due to which the insurance company will issue the new mobile set to complainant on his depositing Rs.3000/-. Feeling no alternative, on same day the complainant deposited Rs.3000/- with opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.3 issued a job sheet to complainant, in which the depositing of said amount has been mentioned. Opposite party no.3 further assured complainant that new set will be delivered to complainant within 21 working days. After that many a times complainant approached opposite party no.3 and requested to handover the new mobile set as per assurance. But neither the opposite party no.3 hand over new mobile handset to complainant nor given any satisfactory reply to him. The complainant also issued a legal notice to the opposite parties, but to no effect. Due to the acts of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment and economic loss. Hence this complaint.

3.                Notice issued for the service of opposite party nos.1 to 3 duly served. But despite that none has appeared on behalf of opposite party nos.1 to 3. As such, opposite party nos.1 to 3 were proceeded against ex-parte. Notice issued for the service of opposite party no.4 received back with report 'unclaimed'. As such, opposite party no.4 was proceeded against ex-parte.

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in ex-parte evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.

5.                  Ld. counsel for complainant argued that he purchased a mobile phone from opposite party no.1 worth Rs.60,000/- on 04.11.2016 against duly issued bill, copy of which is Ex.C-6. At the time of sale of mobile, opposite party no.1 gave one year warranty against any manufacturing defect. The complainant got his mobile phone insured from opposite party no.3 against any type of damage or defect in the mobile phone. Unfortunately, the display of the mobile in question got broken. The complainant approached to opposite party no.3,who retained the mobile set of the complainant and directed the complainant to come after few days. When complainant approached to opposite party no.3, it told that as the mobile handset is badly damaged, so the same is not in repairing condition and told the complainant that now the insurance company will issue new mobile handset to the complainant, subject to deposit of Rs.3000/- by the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant deposited Rs.3000/- with opposite party no.3 and on it opposite party no.3 issued a job sheet to the complainant and assured the complainant that new handset will be delivered to him within few days. Thereafter, complainant many time visited to opposite party no.3 with a request to handover the new mobile handset to him as per assurance given by it. But till date neither new mobile handset is handed over nor any satisfactory reply is given. Complainant also issued a legal notice to opposite parties, but to no effect. The services rendered by the opposite parties are deficient one. The opposite parties may be directed to replace the mobile phone of the complainant and also to pay compensation.

9.                We have thoroughly gone through the file, evidence and arguments lead by counsel for the parties. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone from opposite party no.1, which was insured with opposite party no.3 and during the insurance cover display of the mobile set broken and complainant approached opposite party no.3 for the repair of the same, who told that as the mobile is badly damaged and not in repairing condition. So, the insurance company will issued a new mobile handset to complainant and also asked the complainant to deposit Rs.3000/-. Accordingly the complainant deposited Rs.3000/- with opposite party no.3. But despite that till date they have not deliver the mobile handset to complainant. Counsel for complainant argued that there was one year warranty given by the insurance company against any defect in the mobile phone. To prove his case, complainant produced on record copy of the bill dated 04.11.2016 as Ex. C-6, copy of the policy/Plan Acceptance Form Ex.C-5 and copy of job sheet Ex.C-4. As opposite party nos.1 to 4 were proceeded against ex-parte, so there is no rebuttal on their side. We are of the opinion that opposite party nos.3 & 4, who allegedly issued the said insurance policy to the complainant and received insurance charges and gave assurance that they made goods loss in event of the mobile of the complainant got damage or defective is liable to repair the mobile set in question to the satisfaction of the complainant or to replace the same with new one and by not doing so, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of opposite party nos.3 & 4.

11.              From the above discussion, the complaint in hand is hereby allowed against opposite party nos.3 & 4 and it be directed to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with new one of the same make and model within one month and in case of failure to pay Rs.60,000/- i.e. price of the mobile phone in question alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the filing of this complaint till realization. Further opposite party nos.3 & 4 are directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Three thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. The complaint against opposite party nos.1 & 2 stands dismissed being retailer and manufacturer, as the mobile handset in question was insured with opposite party nos.3 & 4, who insured mobile of the complainant and gave warranty against any defect. Compliance of this order be made within one month from date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings against opposite parties under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 06.09.2017

 

                               (Bhupinder Kaur)                   (Vinod Bala)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                     Member                               Member                            President