Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/15/2020

Satpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karan Electronics and other - Opp.Party(s)

Shri mohit verma

20 Dec 2021

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATHGARH  SAHIB.

                                                               Complaint Case No: 15 of 2020

        Date of Institution: 14.02.2020

        Date of Decision: 20.12.2021

 

Satpal aged about 46 years, son of Om Parkash , resident of House No.102, Ward no.3, Near Smadh, Khamanon, Tehsil Khamanon, , District, Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                                                                  ...........Complainant

Vs.

1. Karan Electronics , Chandigarh-Ludhiana Road, Khamanon, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its proprietor
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, having its branch office at Court Road, Hoshiarpur-146001 through its concerned signatory/Branch Manager.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, having its branch office at  GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006 through its Chairman/M.D.
4. Boshion Service Private Limited, Lalheri Road, in front of UCO Bank , Khanna-141401, District Ludhiana through its concerned signatory/proprietor

                                                            .......Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019

Quorum

Sh.Pushvinder  Singh, President

Ms.Shivani Bhargava, Member

   

Present: Sh. Mohit Verma, Advocate, Cl. for      complainant.

Sh. Manoj Singh Badesh, Advoate, Counsel for Opposite party  No.1.

Sh.Amit Gupta, Advocate, Counsel for the Opposite parties no.2 and 3.          

                     Opposite party no.4 deleted vide order dated 10.12.2020.                 

                      

ORDER

By Pushvinder  Singh, President

                      The present complaint was filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as “OPs” for short) Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

2.                In this complaint,  The  CC pleaded that  he has purchased Oppo A3S 2GB from OP no.1 through invoice No.G1/345 dated 18.10.2018. On the same day the complainant also got insured the above said mobile handset from OPs no.2 and 3 vide policy No.OG-19-1209-9931-00002799 valid w.e.f 18.10.2018 to 17.10.2019 midnight. The complainant  paid  the premium  amount of Rs.1334/- to the OPs no.2 and3 for insurance of above said mobile handset. In the said Insurance Policy , all type of risks of the mobile handset are covered.   On 18.09.2019, the above said handset suddenly collapsed/fell down and it  was totally damaged. When the complainant approached the  service center i.e the Op no.4 and the an estimate dated 19.9.2019 was issued to the complainant, which showed that the mobile handset was totally damaged and the same clearly revealed that the value of the repair come to Rs.9177/-. For the purpose of  lodging the claim, the complainant submitted all the relevant documents.  Despite repeated visits, the OP no.4 failed to  settled the claim  and in the last week of January 2020,  the OP no.4   orally repudiated the claim of the complainant without any reason and  returned the damaged handset to the complainant. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.Rs.10,990/- being amount of the mobile handset Interest  @ 12% P.A from the date of damage till actual realization and Rs.50,000/- as damages including punitive damages.

3.                The complaint has been contested by OP no.1, who filed his written reply, raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable,  that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from the Commission  as such he  is not entitled for any relief. It is further alleged on the merit that the complainant purchased  the said mobile phone from OP no.1 but same was insured by the OPs no.2 and 3.   The complainant  concocted false story  and the OP no.1 is not responsible for the repair or guarantee/warrantee of the said handset. The guarantee/warrantee is given by the Company concerned. Moreover the said mobile is insured  from OP no.2 and 3, so the OPs no.2 and3 are responsible for the replacement or repair of the said handset.  The OP no.1 has no concern or connection with this  process .There is no deficiency in service. Accordingly , OP. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                The complaint has been contested by OPs no.2 and 3, who filed their written reply, raising preliminary objections that there is no cause of action for filing the present complaint, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs no.2 and 3. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the Policy,  and  is therefore, not entitled for any claim and no cause of action to file the present complaint and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint.  It is further alleged on the merit the complainant has purchased the insurance Policy number OG19-1209-9931-00002799 covering the OPPO Mobile A3S(CPH 1803)865053045951491 w.e.f 18.10.2018 to 17.102019 strictly subject to the terms and conditions of the Policy.  It is clarified that only the risks mentioned in the terms and conditions of the Policy are covered. The complainant has failed to comply with the requirements of the company .  There was no compliance at the end of the complainant and as such the complaint is pending for want of compliance  at the end of the complainant . Accordingly, OPs. no.2 and 3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                The name of OP no.4 was deleted vide order dated 10.12.2020

6.                The CC in support of his complaint tendered in his evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OPs. no.2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Saurav Khullar , Senior Executive Legal as Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence.

7.             We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and OPs no.2 and 3 and have also gone through the record.

8.                               This complaint was filed by the complainant for directing the OPs to pay Rs.10,990/-  along with  interest at the rate of 12% P.A  and Rs.50,000/- as damages and costs of proceedings. When  this complaint was pending  for arguments  the matter was settled between the parties  and Ld. counsel for OPs no.2 and 3 made a statement that  the Insurance Company  is ready to pay a sum of Rs.7144/-  to the complainant within 30 days  from the receipt of certified copy of order of this Commission.  Ld. counsel for the complainant  stated that he has no objection if the award is passed against OPs no.2 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.7144/-  within  30 days from the receipt of certified copy of order and in default  the OPs no.2 and 3  be directed to pay interest, compensation and litigation expenses. In these circumstances  as per mutual understanding  of the parties , the present complaint is partly allowed  and the Ops no.2 and 3 are directed to pay Rs.7144/- P.A, within  30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, otherwise the complainant shall be entitled to recover amount  of Rs.7144/- alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the date of payment till  realization and he shall also be entitled to recover Rs.5000/- as cost.  Copy of the order be supplied to the complainant and the OPs through registered post as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

December 20, 2021

                                                                 (Pushvinder Singh)

                                                                President

 

                                                       

                                                                  (Shivani Bhargava)

                                                                                     Member