BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.191 of 2015
Date of Instt. 06.05.2015
Date of Decision :03.08.2015
Amandeep Shoor son of Dharam Pal Shoor, R/o 3, Gobind Nagar, Basti Guzan, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Mobile House, Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.
2. Daily Assure + Lite, Regd.Office:- Apps Daily Solutions Pvt Ltd, D3137-39, Oberoi Garden Estates, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400072.
3. Assistance Sales Manager, Daily Assure + Lite, Mobile House, Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: None for the complainant.
Opposite parties are exparte.
Order
J.S.Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased Samsung Mobile 7102 353202065928504, vide invoice No.64222 dated 17.2.2015 for a sum of Rs.14,600/-. At the time of purchasing the aforesaid mobile, the aforesaid mobile was insured by opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1 and a sum of Rs.900/- vide invoice No.66255 dated 28.2.2015 was paid. At the time of getting the insurance of the aforesaid mobile, the opposite parties No.1 & 2 assured that under this policy, the following risks will be provided to the complainant:-
1.(Theft, Burglary, Physical damage & Fluid damage)
2. (Free all risk mobile insurance).
2. The complainant met with an accident on 14.3.2015, at about 2/2.30 PM in the area of Ravidass Chowk, Jalandhar. In the said accident, the camera glass of the aforesaid mobile was also broken and the clarity of the aforesaid camera was also damaged. The complainant also does not know what is the internal fault in the aforesaid mobile. The complainant visited on the same day i.e 14.3.2015, to the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 registered the complaint of the complainant vide No.ADD 149815 1531 319 on the same day i.e 14.3.2015 and the opposite party No.1 sent to the complainant at the service centre of Samsung i.e Shabd Enterprises, Ram Rose World Trade Centre, Opp.Indo Canadian Bus Service, near Bus Stand, Jalandhar and the said service centre told to the complainant that the complainant will pay a sum of Rs.1850/- for the repair of the aforesaid mobile. The complainant told to the said service centre that the aforesaid mobile is insured with the opposite parties No.2 at the time of purchasing the aforesaid mobile. The said service centre sent the said claim to the insurance company i.e opposite party No.2. The complainant was called by the said service centre on 16.3.2015 and told to the complainant that the claim of the complainant has been rejected by the opposite party No.2. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 many a times, and the opposite party No.1 put the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to pay any claim of the complainant and till today, the complainant has not received any claim from the aforesaid opposite parties. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay him Rs.50,000/- as damages.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte.
4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed evidence.
5. On 16.7.2015 the case was fixed for arguments but none appeared on behalf of complainant but in the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to 21.7.2015 for arguments. On 21.7.2015 again none came present on behalf of complainant and from 21.7.2015, the case was adjourned to 24.7.2015 but on that date also nobody appeared on behalf of complainant and as such case was adjourned for 3.8.2015 for orders with liberty to the complainant to file written arguments before the date fixed but no written arguments were filed on behalf of complainant nor anybody appeared on his behalf.
6. We have carefully gone through the record.
7. The complainant has himself produced insurance policy of the mobile handset Ex.C3 issued by opposite party No.1. This policy has been issued on behalf of New India Assurance Company Limited. So, liability, if any, is that of New India Assurance Company Limited but the complainant has not impleaded the said company as party. Since none is present on behalf of complainant, as such nobody can be directed to implead the above said insurance company as a party in the present complaint. Opposite party No.2 Daily Assure + Lite is nothing but trade mark. This fact is even evident from the document Ex.C2 produced by the complainant. So in absence of insurance company, the present complaint can not be decided. The present complaint is bad non-joinder of necessary party i.e above said insurance company.
8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
03.08.2015 Member Member President
