Haryana

Kurukshetra

108/2018

Durga Bhadur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobile CAre - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.108 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 14.05.2018.

                                                     Date of decision: 16.07.2018.

Durga Bahadur Somai S/o Sh. Hasta Bahadur, r/o F10, D.C.Colony, Sector-13, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Mobile Care, near Aggarsain Chowk, Sector-13, Umri Road, Kurukshetra through its authorized proprietor/partner.
2. Bajaj Finance Limited, Sector-17, Kurukshetra through its Authorized Officer.
3. Fone Safe, CPP Assistance Services Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, Wing A, Golf View Corporate Tower-A, Gold Course Road, Sector-42, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Authorized Officer.    

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Rajan Chawla, Adv. for the complainant.

                Sh. Shekhar Kapooor, Adv. for Op No.2.

                Ops No.1 & 2 exparte.   

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Durga Bahadur against Mobile Care and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set make Oppo Fls 64 GB bearing IMEI No.863795035566075 for a sum of Rs.19,000/- from the Op No.1 vide bill No.950 dt. 30.01.2017.  It is alleged that the said mobile set was got insured with the Op No.3 after making insurance amount of Rs.1799/-. It is further alleged that the said mobile set was misplaced on 11.12.2017 at Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra alongwith two sims.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops several times to pay the purchased amount of mobile set to the complainant but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the mobile set with the new one or to refund Rs.19,000/- as the cost of mobile set to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.

3.            Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 3 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 19.06.2018, whereas Op No.2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant in the entire complaint has nowhere contended or averred that the Ops have in any manner breached or violated any of the provisions and conditions of the loan agreement; that the complainant has availed a loan vide loan account No.510DPF34165720 for an amount of Rs.18,990/- dt. 03.03.2017; that the monthly EMI to be paid was Rs.1588/- for a contract period of 12 months; that as on date the complainant has paid up all the dues and there are no outstanding; that the allegations made by the complainant are with regard to the insurance amount of Rs.1799/- which has been availed from the insurance partner i.e. the Op No.3 and the monthly EMI to be paid was Rs.225/- and the total EMI which was getting deducted from the account of complainant was Rs.1808/-.  The said loan account was also closed and NOC was issued; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant placed on file affidavit, copy of cash memo and other documents.    

5.             We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

6.             From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 30.01.2017 for the sale consideration of Rs.19,000/-.  It is also on record that the complainant got the mobile set insured from Op No.3 for the amount of Rs.1799/-.  However, the Op No.3 has failed to explain the circumstances in this regard. 

                So, in these circumstances, the complaint of complainant stands allowed and Op No.3 is directed to pay the insurance amount of Rs.19,000/- to the complainant.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.3.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:16.07.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

(Anamika Gupta)             

                                        Member