DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 317 of 10.8.2016

                                      Decided on:   23.4.2018

Gurpreet Singh S/o Manjoor Singh r/o Village Dharamheri, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Harjeet Bros., Nokia Piority Dealer, Dharampura bazar, Patiala.

2.       Apps Daily Solutions Private Limited, Customer Care, Sewak Plaza, Connect Centre, CC No.1066, near Colabia Hospital, Sahni Sweets Bhupindra Road, 22 No. Phatak, Patiala.

3.       Apps Daily Solutions Private Limited, D 3137, Oberoi Garden Estates, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri East, Mumbai Pin Code 400072.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Rajiv Lohatbaddi, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite Parties No.1to 3 exparte.

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone, Samsung J-500 having IMEI No.352672073345563 from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.12,500/- on 27.11.2015.The complainant also got the said mobile phone insured with OPs No.2&3 by paying a sum of Rs.1249/- .It is averred that on 20.1.2016, the complainant was walking on the road and a bike came and hit the complainant, which resulted in sudden fall of the mobile phone and in that incident, a car ran over the mobile phone which completely damaged the said mobile phone. The complainant immediately approached the authorized service centre of the company i.e. OP No.2 and also OP No.3 i.e. Insurance company. OP No.2 took the mobile phone in its possession and told the complainant that the mobile phone would be replaced as soon as possible. The complainant submitted the claim form on 21.1.2016 and on 8.2.2016 the mobile phone was received by Op No.3 at Mumbai. Thereafter, the complainant contacted Op no.1 also but to no use. Since 20.1.2016 the said mobile phone has been lying with the OPs and they have not replaced the same with a new one, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As such, the complainant underwent a lot of mental agony as well as harassment at the hands of the OPs. Ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
2. On notice, OPs failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against ex-parte.
3. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C12 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
4. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
5. Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone from Op No.1 for a sum of rs.12,500/- on 27.11.2015. The said mobile phone was duly insured with OPs No.2&3.On 20.1.2016, while the complainant was walking on the road, a bike came and hit the complainant which resulted in the sudden fall of the mobile phone and it got damaged.Ex.C2 is the document vide which the complainant lodged a complaint with OPs No.2&3. Ex.C4 is the e-mail dated 8.2.2016, sent by Op No.3 to the complainant regarding the acceptance / receiving the mobile phone in question by the service centre. Ex.C11 is the e-mail dated 28.5.2016, sent by OP No.3 to the complainant, wherein OP No.3 has mentioned that the request of the complainant has been forwarded to the concerned team for further processing. Since 21.1.2016, the said mobile phone has been lying with the OPs who have neither replaced the mobile phone with a new one nor refunded the price of the mobile phone in question Since the mobile phone got damaged during the period while it was duly insured with the OPs, OPs were bound to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part. These days mobile phone is a basic necessity and in the present case since last 27 months, the mobile phone has been lying with the OPs. Moreover, failure on the part of the OPs to contest the claim of the complainant shows indifferent attitude of the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant against OPs No.2&3 only, since OP No.1 is merely a seller. OPs No.2&3 are hereby directed to refund the amount of Rs.12,500/- , the same being the price of the mobile phone alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as compensation for the harassment underwent by the complainant and a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs No.2&3 within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:23.4.2018                

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER