Haryana

Ambala

CC/140/2017

Arvind Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobile Gallery - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.  : 140 of 2017

                                                                        Date of Institution    : 16.05.2017

                                                                        Date of decision       : 28.02.2018

 

Arvind Kumar son of Shri Chanderbhan, resident of House No.1499, Sainik Nagar, Babyal, Ambala Cantt, District Ambala (Haryana)

……. Complainant.

 

1.  Mobile Gallery, 6260/8, Sadar Bazar, Opp. Church, Ambala Cantt (Through its Prop/Partner)

2.  Bajaj Insurance Company, Ambala Cantt through its Insurance Manager vide Insurance Policy bearing membership no.IM0364388 of 12.02.2017 to 11.02.2018.

3.  OPPO Mobile Pvt. Ltd, F-16, Okhala Industrial Area, New Delhi- 110020  through its M.D.

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

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

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gutpa, Member.        

                  

Present:        Complainant in person.

OPs already proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 30.06.2017.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a Oppo Mobile Phone Model A57, Rs. 15,000/- after paying Rs.4,800/- in advance (on installment Rs.1500/- +214/- Insurance Cover through Bajaj Finance) vide bill No.1935 dated 12.02.2017 bearing IMEI-863711035625837 and IMEI no.2863711035625829 along with one year warranty/guarantee and alongwith one year insurance cover from the shop of OP No.1. On 11.04.2017, the complainant was travelling by Rail from Saharanpur to Devband, in the way the above said mobile set has been theft from the pocket of the complainant, then the complainant tried to trace the same but all in vain and after then the complainant had registered an FIR for lost of the Oppo mobile at Police Station, Janpad, Saharanpur (U.P.) . Then the complainant went to the OP No.1 alongwith the FIR and on the advised of OP No.1 complainant had contacted with Insurance Company, Mr. Vinay Kumar mobile no. 7404206848 rep. of Bajaj Insurance Company. On the same day the rep. of Insurance Company had come at the spot and the complainant told all the incident to the rep of Bajaj Insurance Company, the rep of the Insurance Company totally refused to do any help in this case and misbehaved with the complainant on that matter. The OPs are responsible to pay  the insured amount of the above mobile set which is within warranty period and it is the duty of the OPs to give new mobile set or refund the price of mobile phone plus insurance charges plus card charges. Due to this conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a huge mental agony, harassment and monetary loss. Hence, the present case. 

2.                Registered notices issued to Ops but none have turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.06.2017.

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.

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

5.                It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased the mobile set of Oppo Mobile Phone Model A57,  IMEI No.863711035625837 vide Bill no. 1935 dated 12.02.2017 for Rs. 15,000/- from OP No.1 (Annexure C-2) with the one year warranty which was insured with OP No.2. It is also proved on file that the mobile in question was theft in the crowd when complainant was travelling by Rail from Saharanpur to Devband on 11.04.2017 and in this regard he has lodged a complaint in the Police Station of Devband District Saharanpur dated 11.04.2017 which was duly  received by the police official as per Annexure C-4. It is proved on the file that the insurance amount has been paid to the insurance company i.e. Bajaj Insurance Co. i.e. OP No.2 of Rs. 214 /- per month vide Annexure C-2 & Annexure C-3. Whenever, it is also proved on the file that the OP No.2 has received the insurance premium from the complainant and complainant also placed on record the Insurance Policy with effect from 12.02.2017 to 11.02.2018 and mobile in question has been lost during insurance period i.e. on 11.04.2017. As per the terms and conditions, it is mentioned that “As part of this benefit, you will be given a fully functional smartphone handset in case your mobile phone is lost or stolen for use for upto 7 days in select cities across the country”. But the insurance company has not paid the insurance amount of handset till today, in this way the insurance company is deficient in service. Hence, OP No.2 is liable to pay any insurance amount. In the present case OPs No.1 to 3 have also proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents 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.

6.                In view of above discussion, the complaint is dismissed against the OPs  No. 1 & 3 and  allowed against OP No.2  with cost and is directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To pay the invoice amount Rs. 15,000/-  as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.

(ii)     To pay Rs. 3,000/- as 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 :28.02.2018

 

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

      Member                                             Member                                     President