Haryana

Kurukshetra

114/2017

Meena Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobile Point - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.Sharma

15 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.114 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 07.06.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:15.03.2018.

Meena Kumari, wife of Sh. Raj Kumar, resident of Vashishth Colony, H.No.2095, Ward No.10, Kurukshetra..

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Mobile Point, through its owner/proprietor, Aggarsain Chowk, Mohan Nagar, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra.
2. App. Daily (insurer) through its Managing Director, Shop No.202, D Wing Shanti Shopping Centre Meera Road, East near Railway Station, Mumbai-400 072.

 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.   

Present:     Sh. S.P.Sharma, Advocate, for complainant.   

                OPs exparte.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Meena Kumari against Mobile Pain and another, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set make Oppo model FIS bearing IMEI No.861171034080611 for a sum of Rs.18,000/- from the Op No.1 vide bill No.2866 dt. 03.09.2016.  It is alleged that the complainant also paid Rs.1749/- to the Op No.1 for insurance of his said mobile set vide cover note/bill No.2870 dt. 03.09.2016.  It is further alleged that the complainant lost her mobile set on 02.04.2017 in the area of Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra.  A daily dairy report was registered vide GD No.14 dt. 04.04.2017 in Police Station City Thanesar by the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op N.2 and submitted all the documents but the Op No.2 did not settle the claim 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 pay Rs.18,000/- as cost of mobile set alongwith interest and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed  exparte vide order dt. 28.07.2017.  The Op No.2 was proceeded exparte on today i.e. 15.03.2018.

4.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully and minutely.

5.             It is on record that the complainant got the mobile set insured from Op No.2 for the amount of Rs.1749/-.  However, the Op No.2 has failed to explain the circumstances in this regard. 

                So, in these circumstances, the complaint of complainant stands allowed and Op No.2 is directed to pay the insurance amount of Rs.18,000/- 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.2.  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.:15.03.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member