Haryana

Ambala

CC/66/2017

Shreya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lovely Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

02 Nov 2017

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 66 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 02.03.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 02.11.2017

 

 

          Shreya wife of Sh. Akhil Bhargav (Daughter of Sh. Kamal Kishore Tuteja,        resident of House NO.35, Kamal Vihar, Ambala City.  

……. Complainant.

 

 

1. Lovely Electronics, 6272/3, Shop No.2, Jain Bazar, Near Pooja Collection, Ambala city, through its Owner/Prop.
2. Apps Daily solutions Pvt. Ltd. D-31337, Oberoi Garden Estates, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400072. (Through Insurance Manager).
3. OPPO Mobile, Head Office Unit No.651-655, 6^th floor JMD Mega polis Sohna road, Sector-48…..

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                    MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

 

Present:       Sh. Akhil Bhangar, GPA on behalf of complainant.

                   OP No.1 and 2 already exparte v.o.d. 18.04.2017.

                   Sh. Rishi Gupta, counsel for OP No.3.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant has purchased OPP Mobile phone i.e. OPPO Mobile F1 Plus Gold for Rs.26,500/- from the OP No.1 vide bill No.625 on dated 18.07.2016 alongwith the Insurance of the above said mobile after paying Rs.2499/- charge of Insurance extra for insurance cover for one year in any type of damage vide No.0 905694 511561, Apps Daily i.e. the OP No.2 within warranty of one year. Further submitted that the above said mobile phone set worked properly only for about 2 ½  months, after that, the mobile phone started giving trouble and the complainant reported the matter to the OP No.1 at Ambala in the month of November 2016. On assurance of OP No.1, the complainant reported the matter to the Ambala Cantt office at Shi Radhey Complex, Science Market, Ambala Cantt from where the concerned staff issued complainant No.ADN261116197822174 dated 28.11.2016 and also charged Rs.1325/- as charges of repair of the mobile and the complainant paid the said amount to them and concerned dealing staff also issued a receipt to tis effect and deposited the mobile phone and they further sent the mobile phone set to the respondent No.2 in Mumbai. On visiting again and again, to the office at Ambala Cantt, the complainant came to know that the office at Ambala Cantt has closed and now the concerned staff is giving door to door service. Further submitted the complainant was assured at the time of depositing the mobile phone at the office in Ambala Cantt that the mobile phone set well be returned to her after repairs within 8-10 days and the concerned staff further assured the complainant that if the mobile phone could not return back to her within 8-10 days, then, the mobile phone will be returned to her after 21 days definitely. Further submitted the complainant believed on the dealing staff and waited for the return of her mobile phone during the month of December 2016. After 20.12.2016, the complainant again and again approached the OP No.1 to ask the concerned staff of Insurance company to return the mobile phone but the OP NO.1 delayed the matter with one excuse or the other. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice OP No.3 appeared and contested the present complaint, however, OPs No.1 and 2 did not appear before the Court and they were proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 18.04.2017. OP NO.3 in his written statement submitted that the OP No.3 is only guilty of manufacturing of the impugned mobile set and has been unnecessarily impleaded as party otherwise OP No.1 had sold the impugned mobile set and OP No.2 who is a insurance company have no concern with the OP No.3. Further submitted that the whole role has been played by OPs No.1 and 2 and OP No.3 never came into picture after sale of the mobile set. Mobile set was dealt by OP NO.1 and 2 only and the mobile set was never deposited with OP No.3 for repairing or for any other service. So, OP No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-4 and close his evidence. Counsel for OP No.3 has also tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 and R-2 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The case of complainant is that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone for Rs.26,500/- from the OP No.1 vide bill No.625 on dated 18.07.2016 (Annexure C-1) alongwith the Insurance of the above said mobile after paying the Rs.2499/- charge of Insurance extra for insurance cover for one year in any type of damage (Annexure C-3 and Annexure C-4). Perusal of the job sheets Annexure C-2 reveals that the mobile set developed problems qua Sim tray slot (Broken), back panel (plastic/fibre broken) and physical damage within its warranty period and same has been deposited by the complainant with the OP No.1 which was further sent the same to the respondent No.3 and since 28.11.2016, the mobile phone has not been returned in working condition by them to the complainant till date inspite of various visits by complainant.

                   On the other hand, counsel for OP No.3 has argued that the OP  No.3 has been un-unnecessarily impleaded as party in the above noted complaint, otherwise the OP has no role to play as the dealer i.e. OP No.1 had sold the alleged mobile set and the OP NO.2 who is Insurance Company has no concern with the OP and the whole role has been played by the OP No.1 and 2 and the OP No.3 never came into the picture after sale of the alleged mobile set. Perusal of the file, it is clear that the complainant alleged that he has insured his mobile with OP No.3 in para No.3 of the complaint by paying the amount of Rs.2499/- for one year in any type of damage but in reply filed by the company OP No.3 has given the evasive reply but not specified that the mobile in question is not insured by them and never received any insured. Hence, the OP No.3 cannot run from their liability.  So far regarding liability of the dealer and manufacturer, they are earning profit and the mobile in question went out of order during the warranty period. The OPs No.1 and 3 are deficient in providing service as discussed above and the Ops No.1 & 2 not appeared before the Forum to contest the present complaint despite registered notice and they were proceeded against exparte.

5.                Keeping in view the above discussion, it is clear that the OPs No.1 and 2 have not returned the mobile in question to the complainant in working condition. Therefore, they are deficient in providing proper service to the complainant. Since, the complainant had obtained insurance policy Annexure C-3 and Annexure C-4 for mobile in question from OP No.2 by paying a sum of Rs.2499/- for covering the risk qua physical damage etc but there is nothing on the file to show that the complainant has ever approached to the Insurance Company. Hence, the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs and Ops No.1 & 3 are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To refund the costs of Rs.26,500/- as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. OP No.1 and 3 are at liberty to recover the above said amount from the OP No.2 as the mobile in question is insured with he OP No.2 (Annexure              C-3 and C-4)

 (ii)    Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :02.11.2017                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

 

            (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                           Member