DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.570 of 2016
Date of institution: 09.09.2016 Date of decision : 14.02.2017
Sunita Rani wife of Dinesh Kumar resident of House No.206, Sector 19, Panchkula, Haryana GPA of Dinesh Kumar.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Jain Mobile Centre & Gift Gallery, authorised dealer all branded mobile phones, Shop No.20, Panchkula Road, Baltana, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Large Corporate & Brokers Office (95000) 2nd Floor, 4 Magoe Lane, Kolkatta 700001.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Sections 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Ms. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
OPs ex-parte.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
The complainant has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The husband of the complainant purchased mobile set Micromax E 484 on 11.05.2016 from OP No.1 and got it insured with OP No.2 through OP No.1 by paying Rs.1,099/-. However, no insurance cover note/slip was issued to the husband of the complainant on the ground that the insurance is made online. The phone was misplaced in the main market, Sector 7 Panchkula on 23.07.2016. Husband of the complainant got registered DDR for loss of mobile handset with Police Post Sector 7, Panchkula. After registration of DDR, husband of the complainant informed OP No.1 about loss of mobile handset. OP No.1 told the complainant that instead of DDR, FIR was to be lodged within 48 hours of loss of mobile hand set for getting insurance claim. The complainant visited the police station but she was informed that no FIR is to be registered for loss of mobile hand set and only DDR can be registered. OP No.1 was called to the police station where he written on the backside of mobile phone bill that the mobile is insured with OP No.1. Hence, the complainant has sought direction to the OPs to refund her the amount equivalent to the price of mobile hand set to the tune of Rs.14,200/-; Rs.1,099/- towards insurance charges and Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and torture.
2 Notices sent to the OPs were delivered on them on 18.10.2016 and 19.10.2016. However, none appeared for them despite repeated calling. Accordingly, both the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.11.2016.
3. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of insurance Ex.C-1; bill Ex.C-2; DDR Ex.C-3 and authority letter Ex.C-4.
4. The complainant has submitted that at the time of purchase of the mobile hand set, OP No.1 got it insured with OP No.2 and charged Rs.1,099/- from the husband of the complainant. After the loss of mobile on 23.07.2016, OP No.1 has refused to entertain the claim of the complainant for refund of price of the mobile hand set or replacement of new mobile hand set. Thus the OPs have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
5. We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and oral submissions of the complainant. The documents Ex.C-1 shows that the mobile was duly insured with OP No.1. Ex.C-2 i.e. the sale invoice of mobile hand set proves that the husband of the complainant purchased the mobile handset from OP No.1 by paying Rs.14,200/-. The writing on the back side of Ex.C-2 proves that OP No.1 had taken Rs.1,099/- from the husband of the complainant for getting it insured. Ex.C-3 is the DDR regarding loss of mobile hand set. Thus all these documents prove that the mobile hand set purchased from OP No.1 and insured with OP No.2 was lost on 23.07.2016 and DDR regarding the same was duly lodged with Police Post Sector 7, Panchkula. When OP No.1 had charged Rs.1,099/- from the husband of the complainant towards insurance of the mobile hand set, both the OPs were then duty bound to get it replaced with new one or to get refunded the amount of the mobile hand set. The OPs did not honour the claim of the complainant which forced her to file the present complaint before this Forum. In the complaint also, the OPs chose not to appear despite service. Non appearance of the OPs shows that they have nothing to say with regard to the averments of the complaint. Thus, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of the mobile hand set from the OPs.
6. Accordingly, we direct both the OPs to refund to the complainant the price of the mobile hand set to the tune of Rs.14,200/- (Rs. Fourteen thousand two hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of loss i.e. 23.07.2016 till actual payment. We also find that the complainant is entitled to a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) on account of mental agony and litigation cost. The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.
The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 08.02.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 14.02.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Ms. Natasha Chopra)
Member
