DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 125 of 12.4.2017

                                      Decided on: 1.10.2020

Anil Verma S/o Sh.Kishan Chand age about 49 years,R/o H.No.15, Ajit Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Jyoti Enterprises, Basement of Kohli Shopping Complex Near 22 No. Phatak, Patiala through its Prop.
2. Apple Care, Ludhiana,Lower Ground Floor,Janak Towers, Govt.College Road, Rose Enclave, Maya Nagar, Ludhiana, through its Manager.
3. M/s Syska gazettee Secure,SCO 109, First Floor, Sector 47-C,Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorized representative.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

For the complainant:     Sh.Mayank Malhotra, Adv.

For OP No.1:                 Sh.Vijay Goyal,Adv.

For OP No.2&3:            Ex-parte

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Anil Verma  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Jyoti Enterprises and Ors.(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile handset of Apple company bearing Model No.I-Phone 6S(16GB) Gray Colour  having IMEI No.355763072332657 for an amount of Rs.47,000/-on 22.6.2016. At the time of purchase of the mobile , the complainant also paid Rs.2999/- to OP No.3 for the insurance of the mobile which covers the risk of one year blanket cover from theft, physical damage, liquid damage and fire.

It is averred that unfortunately on 24.10.2016 he slipped from stairs with the impact of which the display screen of the mobile phone got broken. The complainant approached OP No.1 who gave one performa to be filled by the complainant for getting the insurance of the mobile. The complainant submitted the performa alongwith the mobile set to OP No.1 on 24.10.2016,who further sent the same to OP No.2. After four months of depositing the set to OP No.1, the complainant shocked on receiving a letter/mail sent by OP No.3 to OP No.2 that his claimhas been rejected.The complainant also shocked after knowing that OP No.3 received the handset on 15.2.2017 whereas he has submitted the same to OP No.1 on 24.10.2016. There is thus clear cut unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs.Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to deliver a new handset to the complainant or in the alternative may make the entire payment of the handset i.e. Rs.47000/-alongwith Rs.2999/- the amount of insurance of mobile handset; to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and humiliation to him and also pay costs of the complaint.

3. Upon notice OPs No.
4. In the reply filed by OP No.1, it has taken preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is filed with  the ill motive to extort money  and to injure the reputation of OP No.1; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that there is no deficiency in service of OP No.1; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint and the same  is liable to be dismissed.

In the preliminary objections, it is admitted by OP No.1 that it has sold the mobile hand set to the complainant but it is not responsible for the conduct and business of OPs No.2&3. On merits , the OP No.1 denied all the averments made in the complaint and has prayed for the dismissal of the same.

5. In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA alongwith documents, Ex.C1 copy of bill, Ex.C2 copy of retail invoice, Ex.C3 copy of mail to Syska, Ex.C4 copy of pamphlet and Ex.C5 copy of complaint to Syska.
6. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Paramjit Kaur,Ex.OPA.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case,carefully.
8. The ld.counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased one Apple handset from OP No.1. The ld. counsel for the complainant further argued that at the time of purchase of the handset the complainant also got insured the mobile set in question from Syska gazettee Secure and paid Rs.2999/-. The ld. counsel for the complainant further argued that unfortunately on 24.10.2016, complainant slipped from stairs  and mobile handset got broken.The ld. counsel for the complainant further argued that OP No.1 issued performa to the complainant to be filled by him regarding insurance amount from the company. The ld. counsel for the complainant further argued that OP No.3 had wrongly rejected the claim so it be allowed.
9. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that the mobile hand set was insured with OP No.3 and it is the duty of OP No.3 .As such the complaint be allowed against OP No.3 only.
10. The complainant Anil Verma tendered his affidavit Ex.CA and has deposed as per the averments made in the complaint. Ex.C1 is the copy of bill of Rs.47,000/-dated 22.6.2016 which shows the purchase of  I-Phone 6S 16GB .Ex.OP2 is the retail invoice issued by Op No.1.It was got insured with Syska gazettee Secure for Rs.2999/-. Ex.C3 is the rejection letter of the claim.Ex.C4 is the pamphlet of Syska gazettee Secure showing the handset covered from theft, physical damage,liquid damage and fire.Ex.C5 was the intimation sent by Anil Verma that his mobile handset has been damaged. It is dated 24.10.2016.
11. OP No.1 has filed his affidavit Ex.OPA that responsibility if any is of OP No.3.
12. Admittedly vide retail invoice, Ex.C2, the mobile handset in question was insured with OP No.3.The mobile was damaged and the report is Ex.C5.The Syska gazettee Secure i.e. OP No.3 has wrongly rejected the claim.
13. From the discussion, it is proved that the mobile was fully insured with OP No.3.So the complaint stands allowed against OP No.3 only and is directed to pay the amount of Rs.47000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% from the date of purchase till payment.The OP No.3 is also held liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of the complaint to the complainant.         

Compliance of the order be made by OP No.3 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:1.10.2020       

                             Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President