DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 599/2016
Date of Institution : 27.07.2016
Date of Decision : 07.09.2017
Puneet Jindal aged about 22 years son of Lal Chand resident of K.C. Road, Street No. 5, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Lenovo India Private Limited, Ferns Icon Level 2, Doddenakund Village, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560037, Karnaktaka India through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. Sahil Mobile Hut, Handiaya Bazaar, Barnala through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.
3. Syska Gadget Secure, Manufactured by Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd., 4, SSK, Saphire Palaza, Pune Airport Road, Near Symbiosis College, Pune-411014 through its M.D./Authorized Signatory.
4. Marketed by SSK Retails Pvt. Ltd., 7, Akashay Complex, Off Dhole Patel Road, Pune-411001.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: Sh. Rajiv Goyal counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Gagandeep Garg counsel for opposite party No. 1
Sh. Rajneesh Kumar Bansal counsel for opposite party No. 2.
Sh. PS Aulakh counsel for opposite parties No. 3 and 4.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
3. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Puneet Jindal has filed the present complaint against Lenovo India Private Limited opposite party No. 1, Sahil Mobile Hut, Barnala opposite party No. 2, Syska Gadget Secure opposite party No. 3 and SSK Retails Private Limited opposite party No. 4 under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short the Act).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Lenovo S850 mobile of the company of opposite party No. 1 having IMEI No. 866021027642338 and 866021027642346, blue colour from opposite party No. 2 against Rs. 12,000/- on 15.4.2015 vide invoice No. 3565. The said mobile was also insured by the complainant by paying Rs. 1,000/- from the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that if the mobile of the complainant is lost or stolen by anyone then as per insurance, the opposite party No. 2 will give new mobile set to the complainant.
3. It is alleged that on 10.12.2015 when the complainant was on his way to shop from his house then two motorcycle riders coming from behind snatched the said mobile. Therefore, the complaint was lodged in the Police Station, City Barnala. It is further alleged that then the complainant went to the showroom of opposite party No. 2 alongwith the insurance cover note for redressing his grievance and asked for new mobile then the opposite party No. 2 kept the insurance cover note with him and delayed the matter on one pretext or the other for about four months.
4. It is further alleged that in the last week of March 2017 the complainant again approached the opposite party No. 2 but the opposite party No. 2 refused to give the new mobile and used filthy language and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is further submitted that thereafter on 1.4.2016 and again on 28.5.2016 the complainant moved two applications to the SHO, Police Station City Barnala but no action was taken against the opposite party No. 2 by the police. Hence, it is alleged that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties which caused a great loss to the complainant. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
1) The opposite parties may be directed to give new mobile phone or to refund Rs. 12,000/- price of the mobile set and Rs. 1,000/- of insurance cover note alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3) Any other relief which this Forum deems fit.
5. Upon of this complaint the opposite party No. 1 has filed a separate written statement taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties, the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands.
6. On merits, it is submitted that the answering opposite party does not provide the services of insurance alongwith its phone and hence the answering opposite party is not responsible for any loss. It is further submitted that it is a matter of dispute between the complainant and the opposite party No. 2 and insurance company. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. The opposite party No. 2 also filed separate written version taking legal objections on the grounds of locus standi, no territorial jurisdiction, non joinder of necessary party and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party.
8. On merits, it is submitted that the answering opposite party had not insured the mobile set and the complainant never visited the showroom of the answering opposite party. Moreover, in case of insurance claim is to be given by the insurance company. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. The opposite parties No. 3 and 4 also filed separate written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that complaint is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties, it is misuse of process of law and there is no deficiency on the part of the answering opposite parties.
10. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant purchased the mobile in question and the policy and all the terms and conditions are mentioned in the booklet which was duly supplied to the complainant at the time when the complainant purchased the said policy. It is further submitted that in the present complaint the mobile of the present complainant was deprived by some unknown persons and the complainant informed the opposite party regarding the same and opposite party process further to decide his claim and asked the complainant to provide certain documents in regard of handset. It is further submitted that after sometime present complainant informed the opposite party that the complainant has found his deprived mobile in question and therefore, on this information the opposite party closed his case. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.
11. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of terms and conditions Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 15.4.2015 Ex.C-3, copy of application dated 28.5.2016 Ex.C-4, copy of application dated 1.4.2016 Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
12. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Mr. Shankara Narayan Prakash Ex.OP-1/1, copy of power of attorney in favour of Shankara Narayan Prakash Ex.O.P-1/2 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sahil Jain Ex.OP-2/1 and closed the evidence. The opposite parties No. 3 and 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Manoj Khurana Ex.OP-3.4/1 and closed the evidence.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
14. It is undisputed that the complainant has purchased the mobile in question vide Invoice No. 3565 dated 15.4.2015 from the opposite party No. 2 Ex.C-3. It is also not disputed by the opposite parties that Ex.C-2 is containing terms and conditions of the insurance. Moreover, the dealer opposite party No. 2 in his written arguments has specifically stated that it is the insurance company who is liable, if at all, to compensate the complainant and there is no allegation of defect in the mobile set and it is a claim lodged for the theft of the mobile set. Ex.C-5 is the application written by the complainant to the SHO, Police Station, Barnala for theft of his mobile in question wherein he has specifically stated that on 10.12.2015 when he was going from his house to his shop then his mobile was snatched by two motorcycle riders. The complainant further mentioned that he insured the said mobile but till today the dealer/ shopkeeper did not make any payment and action be taken. Ex.C-4 is the other letter dated 28.5.2016 written by the complainant to the SHO, City Barnala stating therein that no action has been taken after the expiry of five months and he requested the SHO to take action. On the basis of the said evidence the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite party failed to provide new mobile or to pay the payment of Rs. 12,000/- which is the price of the mobile.
15. On the other hand, it is the case of the insurance company/ opposite parties No. 3 and 4 that the complainant has reported that the mobile was found and therefore, they have closed their case and thus there is no deficiency in service on their part.
16. Thus, perusal of the record shows that the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 have never denied the insurance cover that the insurance taken by the complainant for insuring his mobile and not denied the insurance coverage Ex.C-2 wherein it is specifically stated that it is a Gadget Secure Policy and it covers the risk of theft and burglary and in the question No. 3 it is specifically mentioned that the Gadgets that can be covered under this insurance are mobile phones, smart phones etc. In question No. 4 it is answered that you will be insured for the original purchase price of Gadget. It is the specific case of the complainant that he paid Rs. 1,000/- for the insurance at the time of purchase of the mobile set in question.
17. The only contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company/opposite parties No. 3 and 4 is that since the complainant has reported that the lost mobile set was found, therefore the case was closed. However, the opposite party failed to place on record any such report or any document to indicate that the lost mobile was found and therefore, the company has rightly closed their case.
18. In the absence of any evidence to this aspect, it cannot be held that the said mobile was found and therefore, the stand of the insurance company is fully proved.
19. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is accepted against the opposite parties No. 3 and 4. Accordingly, the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 are directed to pay the (IDV) Insurance Declared Value of the mobile set to the complainant within 45 days. In case the claim is not paid within 45 days then the complainant is entitled to interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till realization. Opposite parties No. 3 and 4 are further directed to pay Rs. 1,100/- as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
7th Day of September 2017
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
