Haryana

Ambala

CC/427/2018

Shanty Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

khurana Mobile Shop - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

14 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  427 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution           :  26.12.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :  14.02.2020.

 

Shnaty Singh son of Jaswant Singh, resident of House No.662, V.P.O. Jalbera, Tehsil & District Ambala (Haryana).

……. Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. Khurana Mobile Shop, Manav Chowk, Ambala City (Through its Sale/Manager).
2. Oppo Mobile Service Centre, Vijay Rattan Chowk, Ambala Cantt. (Through its service Manager).
3. Home Credit India Finance Private Limited, 3^rd Floor Infinity Tower, C.DLF Cyber City Phase 2, Gurugram (Haryana)-122002 (Through its G.M.).
4. AmTrust Mobiles Solutions, Ist Floor, Tower 2 Equinox Business Park, L.B.S. Marg, Kurla West Mumbai MH 400070, India (Through its M.D.)
5. OPPO Mobiles India Private Ltd., Plot No.1 Udhyog Vihar, Greater Nodia Gautam Budha Nagar, U.P. 201306 (through its Manager M.D.).

 

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Complainant in person.

OPs No.1, 2 and 4 already ex parte vide order dated 26.03.2019.

OP No.5 already ex parte vide order dated 14.08.2019.

Shri Manish Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3.

 

ORDER:     SMT. RUBY SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the Act against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs praying for issuance of following directions to them

1. To replace the defective mobile in question with new one upgraded model or to pay Rs.11,000/- i.e. cost of the mobile in question alongwith interest  18% per annum from the date of purchase of the mobile set, till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.  
   382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that OP No.1 is authorized seller of OPPO mobiles and OP No.2 is service centre and both are situated at Ambala Cantt. OP No.3 is a loan Finance Company and OP No.4 is authorized Insurance Company and OP No.4 is a Manufacturing Company of OPPO mobiles. Complainant purchased a mobile phone OPPO A83 (Gold) with IMEI No.8688390324229195 and 868839032429187 from the OP No.1 vide Bill No.2285 dated 04.07.2018 for a sum of Rs.11,000/- on installments (Rs.10990/- +Insurance Cover Rs.1089/-) Total Rs.12,079/-. Complainant paid total Rs.2700/- i.e. (down payment of Rs.2,229/ Rs.471/- processing fee) through OP no.3 on monthly instalment of Rs.1642/-. Since, the date of purchase of the mobile question same was working properly. On 07.11.2018, complainant met with a road side accident and the complainant was admitted in Civil Hospital, Ambala City. Mobile in question was also got damaged in that accident. As the complainant was advised to take rest, the whole incident was narrated to the OP No.1 and 4 by the family member of the complainant and also requested the OPs No.1 and 4 to do something about the phone as same was covered under the Insurance Cover. After then the family members of the complainant went to the service centre at Ambala Cantt. i.e.  OP No.2 but it advised them that the mobile in question is totally damaged and same is not repairable and to contact with the Insurance Company for the replacement or claim. Complainant again and again approached to the OP No.3 through OP No.1 but they failed to redress the grievance of the complainant and while misbehaving with the complainant they refused to do anything. The mobile set was insured under Insurance Cover but the OPs failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. This way, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs No.1 2 & 4 before this Forum, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.03.2019.       

                   Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.5 before this Forum  therefore it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 14.08.2019.

                   Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability suppression of true and material facts, no cause of action. On merits, it is stated that OP No.3 is a separate legal entity engaged only in the business of extending loan facilities on consumer durables to the prospective buyers as such the OP neither solicits insurance business nor is any way connected with operation of insurance business as that of OPNo.4. The OP No.3 being an NBFC is into the business of finance and follows the strict guidelines laid down by RBI. The complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP No.3 in this litigtion without any fault on their part. Further denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint on the ground of want of knowledge prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs. Further prayer has been made for compensation of Rs.200000/- for causing loss to the reputation of the OP No.3 and Rs.35000/- on account of litigation expenses..

3.                Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C1 to C3 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Shri Rajat Goel son of Mr. M.K. Goel, working as Manager-Legal at Home Credit India Finance Private Limited, 3^rd Floor, Infinity Tower C DLF Cyber City Phase-2, Gurgaon, Haryana as Annexure OP3/A along with documents Annexure OP3/1 to OP3/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.3.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 The learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the version as mentioned in the complaint and prayed for allowing the present complaint.

6.                Similarly, the learned counsel for the OP No.3 reiterated the version as mentioned in its written version and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

7.                From the perusal of case file and material on record, admittedly, the complainant had purchased the mobile OPPO A83 Gold in question from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.11,000/- on installments (Rs.10990/- Insurance Cover Rs.1089/-) Total Rs.12,079/-. Complainant paid total Rs.2700/- i.e. (down payment of Rs.2229/- Rs.471/- processing fee) through OP no.3 on monthly instalment of Rs.1642/-. The complainant alleged that on 07.11.2018, he met with a road side accident in which the mobile in question got damaged and as his mobile was insured with the OP No.2 vide Insurance Cover Note, Annexure C-2. Perusal of Annexure C-2 clearly shows that the mobile in question was insured with the OP No.4 for the period from 04.07.2018 to 03.07.2019, for a sum assured of Rs.10990/-.  Despite several visits of the complainant, his claim was not settled. On the other hand, none has contested the complaint on behalf of OP No.1 2 4 & 5, as they were proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and unchallenged against the OP No.1 2, 4 & 5 and thus, we have no other option, except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant, which is duly supported by his affidavit and other supporting documents. On the other hand the main argument of the learned counsel for the OP No.3 is that OP No.3 had only provided the loan facility to the complainant and OP No.3 has unnecessarily been made part in the present case as it has no role to play in settlement of the claim of the complainant. As per the contention of the Ld. counsel for the complainant, complainant met with a road side accident on 07.11.2018, at the time when the mobile was covered within the insurance policy. As the claim of the complainant has to be settled by only OP No.4 we are of the view that OP No.1, 2, 3 & 5 are not deficient in providing the services to the complainant and complaint filed against them is liable to be dismissed. From the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clearly established that the mobile in question got damaged within Insurance period and the OP No.4 has failed to redress the grievance of the complainant, as such, OP No.4 is deficient in providing services to the complainant and is not only liable to pay Rs.10990/- i.e. sum assured under policy Annexure C-2  of the mobile in question, but is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

8.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OPs No.1, 2, 3 & 5 and allow the same against the OP No.4. OP No.4 is directed to comply with the following directions:-

1. To pay the sum assured amount of Rs.10990/- of the mobile in question along with interest 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 26.12.2018, till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OP No.4 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount mentioned @ Sr. No (i) & (ii) shall carry penal interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 26.12.2018, till its realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :14.02.2020.

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

           Member                              Member                          President