BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.211 of 2016.
Date of Instt.:12.08.016.
Date of Decision: 06.01.2017.
Ram Chander son of Shiv Chand Sethi resident of Gurunanakpura Mohalla, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
..Complainant
Versus
1. Prop. Khurana Mobile Gallery, 103, Palika Bazar, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
2. APPI INFORMATICS PVT. LTD. 227, 1B, AJC Bose Road, Vikash Building 3rd Floor, Kolkata-700020.
..Opposite Parties.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Sh.P.K.Arora, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties with the averments that he had purchased a mobile/Handset from OP No.1 no.1 for a sum of Rs.7500/- vide cash memo dated 14.04.2016 and also got the same insured by paying Rs.500/- in cash to the OP No.1. It has been further averred that since 06.07.2016 said mobile is not traceable and the complainant has also got registered a report regarding loss of the mobile with Haryana Police Citizen Service. The complainant has also deposited the demanded documents with the Ops but despite that OPs did not pay the claim amount and now hve flatly refused to pay the same. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure PW1/A and documents as Annexure 1 to Annexure 3.
2. Opposite party No.1 did not appear despite personal service and opposite party no.2 did not appear despite service through registered letter and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.
3. We have heard the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.
4. It is established on case file that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 vide invoice No.14480 on 14.04.2016 as is evident vide bill Annexure-1. According to the complainant, he got the mobile in question insured with OP No.2 through OP No.1 by paying Rs.500/- in cash. The document Annexure 2 reveals that the mobile in question was insured with opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the mobile in question got lost during subsistence of the insurance but the OPs did not pay the claim regarding this despite depositing of requisite documents and receiving of premium of the insurance. The complainant has placed on file his affidavit as Annexure PW1/A wherein he has testified all the facts so set out by him in his complaint. He also placed on file copy of report lodged by him with Haryana Police Citizen Services regarding loss of mobile (Annexure 3). It has been further argued by learned counsel for the complainant that he got insured the mobile for covering risk of theft and physical damage to the same by paying Rs.500/- through OP No.1, therefore, the OPs were liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant of the mobile.
5. Since the pleadings and contentions put forth by the complainant remained unrebutted as the Ops did not join the proceedings of the case and opted to remain exparte, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the present complaint deserves acceptance. Hence, the present complaint is allowed and the Ops are directed to pay a sum of Rs.7500/- i.e. insured amount of the mobile in question to the complainant. We also direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- in lump sum as compensation to the complainant for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses etc. This order should be complied jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order, failing which the above said amount of Rs.7500/- will carry interest @9% from the date of order till actual realization. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:06.01.2017.
(Raghbir Singh)
President,
(Ansuya Bishnoi) Distt.Consumer Disputes
Member, Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
