O R D E R

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting reliefs from the opposite parties.

                   2. The case of the complainant is as follows:  The complainant purchase a Lenova Vibe PI Turbo Mobile Phone on 06.06.2016 for 1^st opposite party by paying Rs.17,300/- as its consideration.  On the date of purchase itself the complainant availed an insurance policy by paying an amount of Rs.1,700/- to the 1^st opposite party.  It is contended that the said policy was in force for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase.  On 26.09.2016 at about 12.30 p.m. when the complainant get down from his car at Podiyadi Junction near Thiruvalla suddenly another car came from the opposite side which hit the opened door portion of the said car and as a result the mobile phone which was kept in the hands of the complainant was happened to fallen on the road which was completely damaged.  The complainant intimated this incident to the 1^st opposite party’s office and on 28.09.2016 the complainant entrusted the defective mobile set to the 2^nd opposite party’s office at Kottayam and lodged a claim before the 2^nd opposite party.  At the time of the entrustment of the mobile to 2^nd opposite party he paid an amount of Rs.800/- as the compulsory deductable amount to the 2^nd opposite party’s office.  On 23.11.2016 the 2^nd opposite party has rejected his claim on the ground that the phone was repaired elsewhere.  According to the complainant, the act of the opposite parties are among to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their side.  There is no ground for the repudiation as stated by the opposite parties in the repudiation letter.  Hence the complaint, for realising the price of the mobile phone Rs.17,300/-, realising the compulsory deductable amount Rs.800/-, compensation, cost etc. etc.

                   3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to opposite parties for their appearance.  Though the opposite parties received notice they did not appeared before the Forum on 24.01.2017, 13.02.2017 and on 07.03.2017.  The opposite parties were absent on all the above stated days hence this Forum set exparte against opposite parties.

4. In this case, we have to consider the following issues:-

1. Whether the complaint is allowable or not?
2. Regarding costs and relief?

         5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he is examined as PW1.  Ext.A1 to A4 were also marked in favour of PW1 at the time of his chief examination.  Ext.A1 is the Invoice dated 06.06.2016 issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A2 is the copy of registration details of the policy dated 06.06.2016 which was downloaded from Gmail.  Ext.A3 is the copy of mobile protection.  Ext.A4 is the repudiation letter for claim petition dated 23.11.2016 sent by the complainant at Gmail to Apps daily.  After the closure of evidence we heard the complainant.

          6.  Point No.1 & 2:-  For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.  The complainant as PW1 deposed more or less as per the tune of his complaint.  According to PW1, he purchased the phone on 06.06.2016 and paid Rs.17,300/- as its consideration.  In order to substantiate his contention he produced and marked Ext.A1 the copy of bill dated 06.06.2016.  It is further deposed that he availed an insurance policy for his mobile phone by paying an amount of Rs.1,700/- as its premium.  In order to prove the details of the registration of the said form PW1 produced and marked Ext.A2 document.  This document is downloaded from Gmail and it shows that the date of invoice is 06.06.2014 and the amount is also seen as Rs.17,300/- as the consideration of the mobile phone.  PW1 produced and marked Ext.A3, which is a copy of the ‘mobile protection’ for hand set up to Rs.40,000/-.  In Ext.A3, it also shows that there is a protection against physical damage, liquid damage, theft, data loss and viruses are allowed.  As per the complaint and proof affidavit of PW1, it is seen that his mobile phone was damaged as a result of an accidental fall.  No doubt, this kind of damage comes under physical damage describe in Ext.A3.  It is true that the Ext.A3 is also down loaded from Gmail facility.  As per Ext.A4, it can be inferred that the complainant PW1 filed a claim petition before the opposite parties and it is repudiated without any genuine ground.  As per repudiation letter Ext.A4, it is seen that the complainant entrusted the set elsewhere that is why they repudiated the claim of PW1.  PW1 specifically deposed that he never entrusted his mobile phone to anybody other than the service manager concerned.  In this case, it is true that the opposite parties are set exparte and the evidence adduced by PW1 is unchallengeable.  When we evaluate the evidence before us, it is to say that complainant proved his case successfully and as per the available evidence before us we can see that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is also allowable.  Point No.1 and 2 are also found in favour of the complainant.    

          7.  In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. The opposite parties are directed to refund the price amount of the mobile phone Rs.17,300/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Three hundred only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.

2. The complainant is also directed to return the mobile phone to the opposite parties at the time of complying this order.

3. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and a cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.

                    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of March, 2017.

                                                                                           (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                         (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)               :    (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Jacob Samuel

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Invoice dated 06.06.2016 issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  A2 :  Copy of registration details of the policy dated 06.06.2016 downloaded 

        from Gmail. 

A3 :  Copy of mobile protection. 

A4 :  Repudiation letter for claim petition dated 23.11.2016 sent by the 

        complainant at Gmail to Apps daily. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

                                                                                              (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Rejikumar. M.R, Perumprampil House, Thalavadi South. P.O.,

                    Naduvile Muri, Kuttanad Village, Kuttanad Taluk.

     (2)  Proprietor, Mobile Planet, Chit Chat Arcade, M.C. Road, 

           Ramanchira, Thiruvalla. P.O., Pin – 689 101.

     (3) Apps Daily Solution Pvt. Ltd., D 3137 Oberoi Garden, Estate,

         Chondivali Farm Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 072.

     (4) Ajai T. Varghese, Service Manager, Apps Daily Solution Pvt. Ltd.,

          D 3137 Oberoi Garden, Estates, Chondivali Farm Road,

          Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 072.

     (5) The Stock File.