CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

     GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

      Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

                (Behind Qutub Hotel)

      New Delhi – 110016

    Case No.183/18

Mrs. Pallavi Kapoor

Pocket C, Flat No.28 C

Gangotri Enclave

New Delhi-110019.…..COMPLAINANT

Vs.

Leehan Retails Private Limited

Plot No80, S.No.232

New Airport RD

Near Symbiosis College

•                                     …..RESPONDENTS

Date of Institution-23.08.2018

Date of Order-22.12.2023

          O R D E R

RITU GARODIA-MEMBER

1. The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of OP for neither providing the insurance cover nor returning/refunding the mobile phone in dispute.

2. The facts as stated in complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile phone having IEMI number 359670064514232 for a sum of Rs.43,000/- on 16.7.2016. He also purchased an insurance product from OP for the said same phone for Rs.1999/-.  The said insurance include fire & allied peril cover, accidental physical damage cover, theft and burglary, fluid and water damage cover and anti-virus support. 

3. On 6.1.2017, the complainant accidently physically damaged the phone in question. The complainant informed the OP to collect the damaged phone on 8.1.2017. He was assured that the device will be returned within a week.  Various emails were exchanged between the parties. Nonetheless, the complainant did not get the repaired phone back. 

4. The complainant prays for refund of Rs.43,000/- with interest @18%, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.30,000/-.

5. OP in its reply submit that it is a service provider and insurance is provided by M/s National insurance company. The complainant purchased the insurance policy after going through the terms and conditions of the policy. As per terms and conditions of the insurance in the booklet handed over to the complainant, any claim for damage due to negligence or intentional damage will be rejected.

6. OP submits that complainant has stated a concocted story in mobile insurance claim form which is as follows: “I was standing at Nehru Place Metro Station on 6^th January 2017 and talking on the phone, holding the phone in my right hand. When I suddenly got a push from behind and the phone fell off my hand. The start button got stuck. The cell is working fine”.

7. OP has denied that the damage done to the phone is covered under the insurance policy. OP has denied the pick-up and receipt of the damaged mobile phone for repairs.

8. OP has relied on email dated 10.3.2017 and 11.3.2017 where complainant in response to OP’s email has stated that he will not hold Syska Gadget Secure responsible for non-repair and requests that the device be returned immediately.

9. The complainant in his rejoinder reiterates that the insurance is in the name of Syska Gadget Secure, the OP. The complainant received the insurance documents in a sealed pack cover. He was assured that all kind of damages and theft will be covered by this insurance. The mobile phone was collected by executives of OP and all communications were exchanged between the complainant and the OP. It is stated that OP had claimed to resolve the issue within 14 days.

10. The complainant has asserted that the incident as stated in mobile insurance claim form also contain the sentence “Start button got stuck”. Thereafter, the mobile phone was collected for repairing.

11. The complainant submitted evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following documents as under:

1. Copy of mobile bill is exhibited as Ex.CW1/1.
2. Overleaf of Syska Gadget Secure is exhibited as and Ex.CW1/2.
3. Copy of policy document is exhibited as Ex.CW1/3.
4. Copy of email dated 28.02.2017 is exhibited as Ex.CW1/4.
5. Copy of email dated 05.03.2017 is exhibited as Ex.CW1/5.
6. Copy of email dated 11.3.2017 is exhibited as Ex.CW1/6.
7. Copy of email dated 12.3.2017 is exhibited as Ex.CW1/7.
8. Copy of emails dated 13.3.2017 & 24.06.2017 are exhibited as Ex.CW1/8.

12.  The Commission has gone through the material and documents on record. It is admitted that the complainant purchased a phone on 16.7.2016 for Rs.43,000/-. It is also admitted that complainant purchased a policy namely Syska Gadget Secure for Rs.1,999/-. The mentioned policy is enclosed within a packaging cover and is labelled as "Syska Gadget Secure, comprehensive coverage for devices." The cover which shows that the product is manufactured by “Leehan Retails Private Limited.”

13. The policy conditions states that the policy cover is provided by National Insurance Company. The said document also states that OP will provide cover for all risk of direct physical loss except the losses listed in the exclusion clause.

14. The parties exchanged various emails. The complainant sent an email to OP on 28.2.2017 stating that his phone was collected by OP on 5.1.2017 and requested OP to give back the repaired phone within a week. OP in response communicated to complainant vide email dated 4.3.2017 stating that the complainant’s details have been forwarded to concerned department. The complainant reiterated his request vide email sent to OP on 5.3.2017.

15. OP sent another email dated 10.03.2017 which is as follows:

We request you to provide a documented declaration stating that “I shall not hold Syska Gadget Secure responsible for non-repair as it is my own decision to return the device without repair.

The complainant replied on the same day as follows:

 Also, since you are not able to repair my phone and since the past 2 months I’m not receiving definite answers from you, I’m left with no option than to ask for my phone back.

Hence I shall not hold Syska Gadget Secure responsible for non-repair as it is my own decision to return the device without repair.

So please return my phone immediately.

Also, ensure that the data is not erased.

16. OP responded to the complainant via email on 12.3.2017, stating that the complainant's claim had been withdrawn. On the same day, the complainant asserted in an email that his data should not be deleted, emphasizing that the device only had minor physical damage with no software issues. OP, on 13.3.2017, communicated to the complainant that his claim was under follow-up.

17. On 15.3.2017, the complainant requested the status of his phone from OP. On the same day, OP replied, indicating that the case had been escalated, and the complainant would be informed through Call/SMS/E-mail. The complainant reiterated the same request on 19.3.2017, receiving the same reply from OP on the same day.

18. In an email dated 23.3.2017, the complainant mentioned being informed by customer care that his phone had been repaired. He requested the dispatch of their phone. OP, on 24.3.2017, sent a generic reply, stating that the complaint had been forwarded to the concerned department. The complainant sent emails on 7.4.2017 and 24.6.2017, requesting the return of their phone.Top of Form

19. OP has annexed the terms and conditions of the policy. The first sentence of policy is as follows: We at Leehan Retails Private Limited are a set of innovative minds trying to facilitate the immediate need of a gadget buyer through our innovation “Syska Gadget Secure”. We are offering a first of its kind comprehensive Complimentary benefits: Gadget Insurance (Fire & Allied Perils Cover, Accidental Physical Damage Cover, Theft & Burglary Cover, Fluid & Water Damage Cover)

20. Thus, from the sequence of event, it can be seen that the complainant purchased a blanket cover for his mobile phone valid from 16.07.2016. The complainant in his mobile insurance claim form stated that his phone fell off from his hand when he was pushed from behind in Metro Station on 6.1.2017 and the start button got damaged.

21. OP collected the phone from the complainant for repairs as admitted in the email dated 10.03.2017. Thereafter, the complainant repeatedly asked to get his phone back but to no avail. OP continued sending generic emails without committing to the return of the device. In fact, OP vide email dated 10.3.2017 asked the complainant to provide a disclaimer for non-repair of phone.  The complainant agreed to the disclaimer to get his mobile phone back with all its data.

22. OP demonstrates significant negligence by failing to return the damaged phone to the complainant despite committing to providing insurance coverage and collecting the phone for repairs. Moreover, OP has not initiated any communication with the National Insurance Company regarding the complainant's claim. The deficiency is evident in the non-return of the mobile phone after it was collected for repairs.

23. Hence, we find OP guilty of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and gross negligence.  We direct OP:

1. To refund Rs.43,000/- along with 9% interest from the date of complaint till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.,15,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical inconveniences and mental trauma.
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

24. File be consigned to record room. Order to be uploaded.