Haryana

Ambala

CC/224/2016

Dinesh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manpreet Soni, Proprietor Soni Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Goyal

17 Jan 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                    

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  224 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         :  26.05.2016

                                                          Date of decision   :  17.01.2018

 

 

Dinesh Gupta S/o Sh Amar Kumar A-17, Vikash Vihar, R/o Barara, Tehsil and District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

 

1.       Manpreeet Soni, Prop. Soni Mobiles, Railway Road Barara, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

2.       Branch Manager, Lenovo Mobiles Pvt Ltd. Vatika Business Part. Ist floor, Sohna Road, Tower A, Sector-49, Gurgaon-122018, Ner Omex Mall.

3.       Centre Incharge, Lenovo Service Centre, Biomedica Health Care, 111, Cabin No.6, Ist Floor, Sanjeevani Blood Bank, Railway Road, Ambala- 133001.

4.       SYSKA GADGET SECURE, 4^th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No.80, S.No.232, New Airport Road, Near Symbosis College, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

 

 

Present:       Sh. Ashok Goel, counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Dinesh Sharma, counsel for OP No.1.

Sh. Sandeep Kashyap, counsel for OP No.4.

OPs no. 2 & 3 ex parte v.o.d. 05.07.2016.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant visited OP No. to purchase  new mobile in May 2015,   under the name and style of Sony Mobiles, where OP NO.1 Manpreeet Soni,  made believe complainant that he is authorized dealer of mobile manufactured and marketed under brand name LENOVO, by OP No.2, which are of very superior quality with best after sales  service, moreover mobile of purchaser will be automatically & immediately insured with OP No.4 i.e. Syska Gadget  Secure as per scheme of manufacturer on company cost  he will provide insurance coupon at the spot to him. On the believing representation of OP No.1, the complainant purchased double SIM Lenovo mobile modal no.9 70-A with IMEI Nos. 865897020974476 & 865897021055275 vide cash memo no. 3293 dated 20.05.2015 and OP No.1 at the same time insured said mobile with OP No.4 vide Syska Card No.53035665-sgi-1299-30962779. After  few days  of its purchase, complainant observed manufacturing defect in working of the said mobile, so he contacted OP No.3 who also found manufacturing defect in motherboard of said mobile which was got replaced by OP No.3 and after huge  persuasion & efforts of the complainant in this regard, OP No.2 & 3 were immediately required to replace said mobile with new one as per guarantee. In this regard e-mail correspondence of complainant with OPs No.2 & 3.  During guarantee period of mobile in question, due to some unknown manufacturing defect to the knowledge of complainant LCD/screen of said mobile got itself damaged in month of Jan, 2016, so he immediately approached OP No.3, who refused to replace said mobile with new one or to change its screen. The complainant told OP No.3 that said mobile is insured with OP No.4 &then OP No.3 contacted OP No.4 with particulars of the mobile and insurance but OP No.4 declined to do the needful and conveyed that IMEI no. of said mobile does not tally with original IMEI no of said mobile in their record as per insurance. The complainant contacted to all the OPs for red ressing his compliant but they declined to do the needful. In this way, the complainant has suffered a financial loss and mental harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notices issued to Ops No. 2 & 3 but none have turned up on their behalf and OPs No. 2 & 3 was proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 05.07.2016 and Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable, no cause of action  and not come to the court with clean hands. On merits, OP No.2 stated that the alleged insurance of the mobile  has not been to the complainant. The mobile in question is not having manufacturing defect and the said LCD/Screen of mobile is also not damaged.

Upon notice, OP No.4 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable, no cause of action, locus standi &concealed the true and material facts. On merits, OP No.2 stated that the complainant never lodges any claim or intimation to the OP No.4. However, it is worthwhile to mention here that manufacturing defect does not cover under insurance and the policy Cover Booklet is issued to the customer at the time of purchasing the insurance scheme. As per policy  terms the compliant must report the loss promptly  to OP No.4 not later than 48 hours from the date of loss. And the loss must be registered through original customer but the complainant fails to do so. So, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs No.1 & 4 and 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 to Annexure C-18 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A and close his evidence. Counsel for the OP No.4 tendered document Annexure R-1 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for the complainant and OPs No.1 & 4 and carefully gone through the case file. The case of complainant is that the complainant had purchased double SIM Lenovo mobile modal no. P-70-A vide Bill No. 3293 dated 20.05.2015 for a sum of Rs. 16490/- Annexure C-1 from OP no. 1 and it developed manufacturing defect i.e. No-Turn-On Operation during warranty period as is shown in Job Sheet Annexure C2 dated 22.08.2015 but the Ops did not indemnify the loss suffered by him. It is strange that after getting the handset repaired it again developed problem as its  LCD/Screen got damaged. In order to prove his version the complainant has placed on file his duly sworn affidavit, therefore this Forum has no option but to believe on the version of the pleaded by the complainant because the OPs No. 2 & 3  have not bothered to rebut the same. Though the OP No.1 has come with the plea that the warranty become void as the LCD/Screen of mobile in question was damaged which occurred due to fault of the customer but it is strange that as to why he has reached at the conclusion that the warranty of the product in question has expired. Rather, the act of the OP No.1  to 3 shows that they are intentionally avoiding to provide  after sale service to the complainant.  The complainant has already sent e-mail to the opposite parties on 02.07.2015 vide Annexure C-10, he requested to OPs to repair his mobile. The OPs duly replied the e-mail Annexure C-9 through E-mail dated 08.07.2015. Thereafter, receiving the abovesaid reply, the complainant again sent the e-mails on 04.08.2015, 08.08.2015, 15.08.2015 as Annexure C-4 to C-7 for do the needful. It is clear that correspondence regarding repaired of the mobile in question used by the complainant, has been made between the parties through various e-mails but the OPs have failed to act as per the wish of complainant. The complainant had purchased the mobile in question after spending huge amount Rs. 16490/- and mobile in question become defective within warranty period and the OPs have failed to rectify the defect in the same. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a benevolent social legislation as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in their judgements from time to time and is aimed at providing for better protection of the interests of the consumers as defined in the preamble to the Act itself but despite that the insurance companies are having tendencies to avoid the genuine claims on one pretext or the other and this is main reason of increasing of litigation between the insured and insurance companies. In the present case OPs No. 2 & 3 have proceeded against ex parte. As such, the contention enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant. Neither the mobile in question has been lost nor damaged, therefore the insurance company i.e OP No.4 cannot be held liable for the defect which is termed as manufacturing defect. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed against OP No.4.

5.                In view of the above discussion we come to this conclusion that the present complaint is hereby allowed against  Ops No.1 to 3 with costs and they are directed to comply with the following directions jointly and severally within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To replace the Mobile set in question with a new one of the same model. If the same model is not available then to refund the cost of mobile set to the tune of Rs.16,490 /- as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.

 (ii)    Also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copy 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 :17.01.2018                                 

 

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)     (ANAMIKA GUPTA)     (D.N. ARORA)

          Member                              Member                         President