| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.436 of 3.11.2016 Decided on: 28.2.2018 Navneet Sethi D/o S.Amarpreet Singh, resident of H.No.41-A/1, Old Moti Bagh Colony, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus 1. Jyoti Enterprises, Basement Kohli Shopping company, Near 22 No.Phatak, Patiala. 2. Syska, SSK, Retails Pvt. Ltd., 7, Akshay Complex, Office Dhole, Patil Road, Pune-411001. …………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.B.S.Sodhi,Advocate, counsel for complainant. Opposite party No.1 ex-parte. Sh.S.P.Singh,Advocate, counsel for Opposite party no.2. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one HTC E95 Dual sim E9SW mobile phone from OP no.1 vide invoice No.6626 dated 27.3.2016 for an amount of Rs.19,900/-. The said mobile phone was insured by OP no.1 on behalf of Op no.2 vide bill No.819 dated 26.3.2016 after paying an amount of Rs.1799/-.It is averred that the said mobile phone got lost on 24.5.2016 and the complainant got registered a complaint on number1605 245896, through customer care of OP no.2 vide e-mail , text message dated 24.5.2016. OP No.2 admitted that job card No.1605245896 was registered with the company. Since the mobile phone was found the very next day, intimation was given on customer care, who advised the complainant not to follow up the same and the complainant need not submit any document such as police report etc and that the claim will be closed automatically. Vide e-mail dated 25.6.2016, OP no.2 intimated that claim No.1605245896 had been rejected and closed as documents were not submitted. It is further averred that lateron the screen of the mobile phone in question got damaged on 13.7.2016 and the complainant got the complaint lodged with Op no.2 through customer care and he also approached OP no.1, who told the complainant that on receipt of the intimation /sanction from OP no.2, they will intimate the complainant and take the mobile phone from the complainant for replacement of the screen. It is further averred that OP no.2 started putting of the matter asking the complainant to submit ‘lost and found’ report of the previous complaint which was not relevant as the complaint had already been rejected and closed vide e-mail dated 25.6.2016. On 19.8.2016, the complainant sent a detailed mail to Op no.2 for considering the damage claim of the screen registered at No.1607253470. The mail dated 19.8.2016 was replied on 21.8.2016 again taking up previous report into consideration and were silent about the 2nd complaint. Similar replies were received to mails dated 22.8.2016, 24.8.2016, on 22.8.2016 and 25.8.2016, asking for lost and found report as the same was necessary for claim no.1607253470. On 26.8.2016 a strange mail was received, stating that, “we regard to inform you that we are unable to reopen your claim” as you have not submitted documents/handset within 30 days from the date of registration. Hence the claim has been closed as per the insurance policy. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs who issued the Insurance policy of the mobile phone but refused to replace the screen covered under the policy on flimsy ground. As such the complainant underwent a lot of harassment at the hands of the OPs and ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986, demanding a sum of Rs.8000/- , replacement of the screen alongwith damages.
- On notice, OP no.1 failed to appear dispute service and was thus proceeded against exparte. Whereas OP no.2 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased one mobile phone from OP no.1 and also got it insured from OP no.1 through OP no.2.It is also an admitted fact that the complaint was lodged by the complainant regarding loss of her mobile phone. The only plea taken by OP no.2 is that the complainant had not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy wherein it is clearly mentioned that complainant should submit certain documents to the OP for the processing of the claim , as such the claim of the complainant was rejected. After denying all other facts mentioned in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, 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.
- The Ld. counsel for OP no.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Manoj Khurana, Authorized representative of OP no.2 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C2 is the invoice whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from OP no.1 on 26.3.2016.Ex.C11 is the invoice whereby he paid a sum of Rs.1799/- and got the same insured with OP no.2. The said mobile phone was lost on 24.5.2016 and the complainant lodged a complaint with the Customer Care vide job card No.1605245896.As per the complainant the said mobile phone was found the very next day and he intimated the customer care, who advised the complainant not to follow up the same and the complainant need not submit any document such as police report etc. and the claim will be closed automatically. Ex.C5 is the e-mail sent by the complainant to OP no.2 for considering the damage claim of the screen registered at 1607253470, wherein the complainant has clearly written that the OP no.2 is demanding ‘lost and found’ report of complaint No. 1605245896 which was withdrawn after talking telephonically to the customer care as the phone was found the very next day in the morning and no police report was registered. Now the OP no.2 was not taking up damage claim with complaint No.1607253470. Exs.C6 to C10 are the e-mails sent by OP no.2 to the complainant in which it is demanding ‘lost and found’ report from the complainant. This ‘lost and found’ report is not necessary as the complainant had already intimated the customer care and after talking with the customer care the complainant had withdrawn the complaint No. 1605245896. That report has no concern with the complaint No.1607253470.The mobile phone got defective during the period while it was duly insured with OP no.2.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OP no.2 to replace the screen of the mobile phone with a new one free of cost. OP no.2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.2000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OP No.2 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified 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:28.2.2018 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
