Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 471.
Instituted on : 17.08.2017.
Decided on : 11.03.2019.
Sandeep, age 29 years, son of Sh. Ishwar Singh, Resident of VPO Kharak Jatan, District Rohtak. Mb. No.9896979603.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Madhvi Enterprises, Shop No. 1348/49 b Chotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak, through its Proprietor.
- Syska Gadget Secure, Head Office, 4th Floor, Sapphaire Plaza, Sakore Nagar, New Airport Road, Vimannagar, Pune, Maharashtra, through its Manager/MD/Chairman.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Ranvir Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Nikesh Kinra, Advocate for opposite party No. 2.
Opposite party No. 1 already exparte vide order dated 28.09.2017.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.09.2016 complainant had purchased a mobile phone Samsung Galaxy J2 having IMEI No. 352602/08/914696/0 and 352603/08/914696/8 dated 26.09.2016 from the respondent No.1 for Rs.9,800/- and the same was got insured with the OP No. 2 for the period from 26.09.2016 to 25.09.2017 and complainant paid Rs.799/- extra amount for said insurance. On 10.06.2017, the mobile phone was damaged due to road accident and its touch screen and display was damaged. After that complainant immediately informed to the OPs regarding said damage of phone and OPs generated a CIN No. 91706109164 in this regard. After that complainant completed all formalities as required by the OPs. But despite several visits and requests of the complainant, OPs have not settled the claim till date. That the act of opposite parties of not to pass the claim amount is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay insured/IDV amount of Rs.9800/- alongwith interest @ 18% and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 has failed to appear before the court, so, OP No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.09.2017 passed by this Forum. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply has submitted that the OP No. 2 has only the facilitator of the product Syska Gadjet Secure and insurance cover is provided by the National Insurance Company. It further submitted that after verification of documents submitted by the complainant, it was found that his date of birth was mismatch from company CMS record which was disclose by its respective customer at the time of purchasing the insurance scheme for his gadget/mobile. So, the claim of the complainant was rejected by the insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2 and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 & Ex.C6 to Ex.C7 in additional evidence and closed his evidence on dated 24.01.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 made a statement that the reply already filed be read as affidavit in evidence and tendered document Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence on dated 19.11.2018.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. Opposite party no.2 in his preliminary objection in para no.4 has mentioned that the answering opposite party is only the facilitator of the product Syska Gadjet Secure and the Insurance cover is provided by the National Insurance Company. But the opposite party No.2 has not mentioned any policy number or has not placed on record any document to prove the fact that the mobile set was insured through National Insurance Company Ltd. As per letter Ex.R1, only reference: CIN number has been mentioned and policy number has not been mentioned on this document. Moreover, this document has been placed on record at the time of evidence on dated 19.11.2018 and the detail of the policy and branch office has not been mentioned by the respondent No.2 either in the written statement of in its evidence. The document Ex.R1 seems to be fake, because as per this document, only the name of the complainant Mr. Sandeep has been mentioned and the detail of Sandeep has not been mentioned. If a document has been served to any person by a company, in that situation the detail regarding the parentage and residential address should be mentioned in letter, but in the document Ex.R1, no such residential address or parentage has been mentioned. Moreover, this document has not been supported with any courier or postal receipts etc. to prove that the same has been delivered to the complainant. Hence the opposite party no.2 is liable to compensate the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party No.2 shall refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.9800/-(Rupees nine thousand eight hundred only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.17.08.2017 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.03.2019.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
