Haryana

Ambala

CC/110/2017

Ramesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobile .Com - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

02 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                                        Complaint case no.  : 110 of 2017

                                                                        Date of Institution    : 17.04.2017

                                                                        Date of decision       :  02.02.2018

 

 

Ramesh Kumar son of Sh. Jasmer Singh, R/o 1 MAGA WATT DIESEL Power House Colony KE Line Ambala Cantt, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.         Mobile.Com-5393, NICHOLSON Road, Near Nigar Cinema  Ambala Cantt, District Ambala (Through its Prop.)

2.         Apps Daily Insurance Company Office, Radhey Shyam Complex, Near B.D.Sr. Sec. School, Ambala Cantt (Through its Service Manager)

3.         Apps Daily Solution Pvt. Ltd. (Insurance Company), D 3137 Oberoi Grden Estates, Chandivali Farm Road Andheri (E) Mumberi-400072 cin No. U64200MH2008PTC187859, Through its G.M.)

4.         Samsung Mobile Manufacturer A-25, Ground  Floor, Front Tower Mohan Co-operative, Industrial Estate, New Delhi. (Through its G.M.)

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

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

                        Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.                              

 

Present:          Complainant in person.

Ms. Anu Raizada, Advocate for OP No.1.

Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate for OP No.4

OP No. 2  ex parte v.o.d.02.06.2017.

OP No. 3 ex parte v.o.d. 17.07.2017.

 

ORDER:

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that complainant had purchased Samsung Mobile Model-J2 vide IMEI-356271074609873 for Rs. 8,500/- from OP No.1 vide Bill No. 2081 dated 26.01.2016 with one year warranty. He make an insurance through OP No.1 after paying Rs. 799/- premium extra vide ID:Platinum-10K-6671636. On 29 Dec. 2016 as when  the complainant  going to his  duty on bike, the above  mobile set was held in the pocket of the complainant  has met with the other bike which is coming  behind  and the same mobile  was held in the pocket of the complainant  and handset broken damage physical Display/Screen and not working properly, then the OP No.1 advised to the complainant went to insurance company and after checking the mobile set by the rep of insurance company deposit the same Rs. 1000/- and received  on JOB Sheet from the Apps Daily Insurance No AND_291216_197843108 and advised to the complainant  please after 21 days, then the complainant  went to get the mobile set after 21 days then again told that please come  after 07 days, after then the complainant  went after 07 days then again told please come after 10 days that your mobile  is not return  with repair from the company then after 10 days  the complainant  went to get the above mobile set, but the above mobile set not return back by the Apps Daily Insurance rep then the  complainant  given an E-mail also on 16 Mar. 2017 and 28 Mar.2017 but no reply has been received by the complainant. Nor action taken on the request of the complainant. On till date no action has been taken by the service care centre and Insurance Company (OPs No. 2 & 3) for repair or replace of his mobile set till date. In this way,  the complainant has to harass and suffered mental, physical and monetary loss due the deficiency  in the service on the part of OPs. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                     Registered notice issued to Ops No. 2 & 3 but none have turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.06.2017 & 17.07.2017 respectively. Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that OP No.1 issued one year warranty on the above mobile set. Warranty provided by the OP No.1 is qua the functioning of the mobile and not against the breakage of the mobile due to accident or mishandling. OP No.1 also stated that he was unable to help the complainant as he met with an accident and broke his display/screen which is not covered in the warranty.

Upon notice, OP No.4 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that the case of the complainant is only against the insurance company as the unit of the complainant was damaged due to mishandling on the part of the complainant. He also stated that the complaint totally based on the dispute between the complainant and the OPs No. 1, 2 & 3. He further stated that OP No.4  has an online system to enter  all claims/complaints vide IEMI/Sr. No. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per details mentioned in the complaint, no details found in the online system of the company which means  that complainant has never approached to the OP No.4. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.4 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                     To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.4 tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith document Annexure R-1and close his evidence. Counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit as Annexure RW1/A  and close his evidence.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased Samsung Mobile Model-J2 vide IMEI-356271074609873 for Rs. 8,500/- from OP No.1 vide Bill No. 2081 dated 26.01.2016 vide (Annexure C-1) alongwith the Insurance of the above said mobile after paying the Rs.799/- charge of Insurance extra for insurance cover for one year in any type of damage (Annexure C-5). Perusal of the job sheet Annexure C-4 reveals that the mobile set physical damaged within its warranty period and same has been deposited by the complainant with the OP No.2. The mobile phone has not been returned in working condition by him to the complainant till date inspite of various visits by complainant.

On the other hand, counsels for OPs No.1 and 4 have argued that the OPs No.1 and 4  (i.e  OP No.1 is Authorised dealer of Samsung Mobile and OP No.4 is  Manufacturing  Company) have been un-unnecessarily impleaded as party in the above noted complaint, otherwise the OPs No.1 & 4 have  no role to play as the dealer i.e. OP No.1 and OP No.4 Manufacturing Company had sold the alleged mobile set and the OP No.2 who is Insurance Company has no concern with the OPs and the whole role has been played by the OP No.2 & 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.2 in para No.2 of the complaint by paying the amount of Rs.799/- for one year in any type of damage. Hence, the OPs No.1 & 4 cannot run from their liability.  So far regarding liability of the Insurance company i.e. OP No. 2 & OP No.3. The OPs No.2 and 3 are deficient in providing service as discussed above and the Ops No. 2 & 3 not appeared before the Forum to contest the present complaint despite registered notices and they were proceeded against exparte.

5.                Keeping in view the above discussion, it is clear that the OPs No.2 & 3 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-5 for mobile in question from OP No.2 by paying a sum of Rs.799/- for covering the risk qua physical damage etc. Hence, the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs and Ops No.2 & 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.8,500/- 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. 3,000/- 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 : 02.02.2018

 

                  

         

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

   Member                                   Member                         President