Haryana

Ambala

CC/156/2016

Raman Gautam - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC India Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jatinder Kumar

13 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 156 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         : 17.03.2016

                                                          Date of decision   :  13.02.2018

 

Raman Gautam S/o Subhash Chand R/o A-1336, Village Mullana Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

     ……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       HTC India Pvt Ltd, G-4 BPTP Park Avenue Sector-30 Near NH-8 Gurgaon-122002 through its authorized signatory. 

2.       Base 39 Mobile Communication, Behind S.D. Girl Hostel, Gian Marg Ambala Cantt.

3.       Biscoot  Insurance through Base 39 Mobile communication, Behind S.D.Girl Hostel, Gian Marg Ambala Cantt being the authorized person. 

   ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.                           

 

 

Present:       Sh.Jatinder Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                   OP No. 1  ex-parte v.o.d.20.03.2017.

OP No. 3  ex-parte v.o.d.23.02.2017.

Sh. Ashish Jain, counsel  for OP No.2.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that complainant had purchased one HTC  mobile set Model desire 816-G, IMEI No.355702063416144, vide Bill no. 24254 dated 17.01.2015 from the OP No. 2 and the OP No. 2 also suggested the complainant to get it insured  from the him as they are the authorized person of the OP No.3 and in case any kind of physical damage or theft with the phone the same be replaced free of cost with in a period of one year from the date of purchase and on the assurance of the OP No.2 the complainant purchase the insurance vide bill no. 024296 dated 18.01.2015 of amounting Rs. 17,500/- and paid Rs. 1750/- from the complainant. After the purchase of the said mobile was physical damage as the screen/display of the set got physically damaged and the complainant contacted to the OP No.2 branch office at near Hotel Swagat, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt and the representative of the OP No.2 suggested a new story to the complainant which the complainant requested  the representative of the OP No.2 to get the screen replaced under insurance but all  is vain. In this way, the complainant has suffered a financial loss and mental harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Registered notices issued to Op No.3 but none has turned up on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.02.2017. On notice OP No.1 appeared and filed its reply stated that case belongs to insurance company and OP No.1 is not liable as its physical damage and according to warranty policy it cannot be considered under warranty. So customer has to bear the charges. OP No.1 also stated that he wishes to repair the device if insurance company approves then they can repair the device on chargeable basis but during the pendency of this complaint, OP No.1 remained absent and therefore, it was proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 20.03.2017.  Upon notice, OP No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement submitting that the complainant purchased one HTC Mobile set from  OP No.2 but the rest of the contents of complaint are totally false, frivolous and vehemently denied. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X alongwith documents as annexure C-1 to C-4 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for complainant and  counsel for the OP No.2  and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                It is proved on the file that complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 17.01.2015 as per Annexure C-2 for amounting Rs. 17,500 and complainant had got the insured the mobile in question and paid the insured amount Rs. 1750/- to the OP No.2 vide Annexure-3.  Perusal of the case file reveals that the mobile got physical damage within its warranty period and insured with OP No.3 through OP No.2. The complainant has come with the plea that the mobile got physical damage as the screen/display of the set during the currency of policy  in question. Therefore, it was the boundant duty of the OPs No. 2 & 3 to indemnify the claim lodged qua the insured mobile. In the present case, OPs No. 1 & 3 have also proceeded against exparte. Therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted qua the OP No.3 and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant. From the facts of the case file it is clear that the complainant has purchased the  mobile  set in question on 17.01.2015 and first time it got damaged on 03.11.2015, it means the complainant has used the mobile in question for more than 10 months. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in the case titled Deepjot Thakural Vs. Mobile Store etc. in Ist appeal No.460/14, decided on 28.05.2014 is fully applicable  to the present case. In the present case OP No.2 is a dealer and the insurance was purchased by the complainant through OP no.2 therefore, OP No.2 is also liable for the deficiency in service along with OP No.3 because op No.2 is not a charitable trust is doing business earning profits from the customers. Therefore, his plea that he is not responsible for any deficiency in service is not tenable. So, it is appropriate to give the direction to the OPs No.2 & 3 to pay the cost of mobile phone amounting to Rs. 17,500/- after deducting the 25% deprecation value of the mobile set (as the mobile has been used for more than 10 months)alongwith the interest @ 9% per annum  from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization within 30 days after receiving the copy of the order.

6.               Further the award in question/direction issued  above shall  be complied  with by the OPs No.2 & 3 within a stipulated period  failing which the award shall attract interest  @ 12% per annum for default period. So, the complaint is allowed in above terms. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 13.02.2018                                                   

                       

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)       (ANAMIKA GUPTA)        (D.N. ARORA)

                        Member                                 Member                           President