...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Kapil Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Opposite party no.3 given up.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased Apple i-phone-7PLUS-32 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.66,000/- vide bill/ Invoice No. 7 dated 1.4.2017. This mobile was also got insured by op no.1 from ops no.2 and 3 vide Master Policy No.95000046161100000001 on payment of Rs.4999/- including the charges of damage insurance, pickup and drop service. That said mobile was damaged as same fell down and it stopped working. The complainant lodged his grievances/ complaint with the ops and op no.3 collected the i-phone from complainant on 3.8.2017 and issued a pickup receipt dated 3.8.2017. It is further averred that now more than four months have elapsed but neither ops no.2 and 3 have replaced the said iphone nor refunded the amount of Rs.66,000/- The complainant has contacted the ops many times but ops are lingering on the matter on one pretext or another. That ops have caused unfair trade practice and deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that mobile in question was purchased by complainant from answering op. Other contents of complaint are wrong and incorrect and denied. It is submitted that answering op is only seller of mobile of op no.3. The complainant has not purchased any gadget insurance policy from answering op because the answering op is not doing the business of selling such insurance policies of op no.2. Hence, for any grievances towards the op no.2, answering op is not liable in any manner. It is further submitted that on the back side of bill issued to the complainant by answering op, the terms and conditions have been mentioned and from the perusal of same, it is clearly proved that answering op is not liable and responsible for any insurance policy of mobile in question. As per terms and conditions of the company, the complainant can avail the remedies only against company. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. Op no.2 in its separate written statement submitted that neither complainant nor ops no.1 and 3 have informed answering op about the alleged damage of mobile phone, nor lodged any claim with answering op at any point of time. Therefore, the complaint is wholly premature and untenable qua answering op. That complainant has not produced copy of insurance policy or any receipt of payment of premium by op no.1 regarding alleged insurance and as such the insurance is denied. The alleged mobile phone was not insured with answering op and as such insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. However, if at any stage, it is found that the alleged mobile was insured with answering op, then in such an eventuality, it is submitted that policy of insurance was issued subject to just all exception, terms and conditions as mentioned in the insurance policy. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Notice could not be served upon op no.3 for want of correct address and on the application of complainant, op no.3 was ordered to be summoned through publication but however, publication fee was not deposited and opposite party no.3 was given up by learned counsel for complainant.
5. The complainant and ops no.1 and 2 then led their respective evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
7. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.P1 in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. The complainant has also furnished copy of cash/ credit memo dated 1.4.2017 Ex.P2, copy of Apps You Need Mobile Protection Important Points Ex.P3, copy of mail Ex.P4 and copy of pickup receipt Ex.P5. On the other hand, op no.2 furnished affidavit of Sh. Karan Singh Chaudhary, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.R1/A, policy schedule Ex.R1 and copy of conditions Ex.R2. Op no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Abhishek Jindal, proprietor Ex.R3, copy of bill Ex.R4 and copies of mails Ex.R5 and Ex.R6.
8. It is proved fact on record that complainant had purchased a mobile from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.66,000/-. It is alleged in the complaint that complainant had got his mobile insured from op no.2 through op no.1. The perusal of evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has not placed on record any copy of the policy duly issued by op no.2 nor he has placed on record any copy of payment receipt of the premium allegedly paid to o no.1 in token of having received payment.
9. Though, the complainant has relied upon certain correspondence by way of mails with Apps You Need, but however, they have not been impleaded as a party rather complainant impleaded YMS Mobitech Private Ltd. as a party which was later on given up by learned counsel for complainant due to reason best known to complainant. So, it appears from the evidence of complainant that complainant has failed to prove that his mobile was insured with op no.2 and he is not entitled for any compensation from ops no.1 and 2 as he has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove his allegations made in the complaint.
10. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 09.01.2020. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
