Delhi

North East

CC/335/2015

Arun Kr. Bharti - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobiliti World - Opp.Party(s)

15 Apr 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 335/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Arun Kumar Bharti S/o Kishan Lal Bharti A-1/113, Gali no. 4 Harsh Vihar, Mandoli North East, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
1                     2	Mobiliti World A-61B, Main Vikas Marg Laxmi Nagar Delhi-110092 Also at:- Registered Office International Value Retail Pvt. Ltd D-55, Okhla Industrial Area Phase 1, 2nd Floor New Delhi-110020   Office No. 210, 2nd Floor, Quantum Tower, Rambaug SV Road, Malad West, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra -400064	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

11.09.2015 15.04.2019 15.04.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts relevant for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a mobile handset model HTC Desire 816G Dual SIM bearing IMEI No. 355702062621968 / 355702062665965 from OP1 retail outlet / seller on 11.12.2014 for a sum of Rs. 17,600/- vide invoice no. 1404. At the time of purchase of the said mobile, the complainant was induced by an employee of OP1 to get the mobile handset insured against accidental damage  / water damage from OP2 and the complainant acting upon the representation of OP1 and assurance of security of his mobile handset got the same insured with OP2 vide Zero Maintenance Plan on payment of Rs. 999/-  as premium for the said cover of one year protection against damages and water log and fire and burglary (excluding theft) provided by OP2 vide Insurance Booklet and Terms and Conditions given by OP2 though no premium receipt was given by OP2. However, when the subject mobile got accidentally damaged on 02.09.2015 and its display got broken and complainant got registered an online complaint with OP2 seeking insurance claim under the cover granted, OP2 kept dilly dallying the matter and did not pay the insurance claim to the complainant as a result of which the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint against the OPs praying for issuance of direction for insurance claim of     Rs. 18,600/- (cost of mobile with insurance premium) and litigation charges of Rs. 15,000/- alongwith Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for loss of job due to taking leave from work to follow up with OPs with regard to subject insurance case.
2. The complainant has attached copy of retail invoice issued by OP1 towards purchase of mobile, copy of insurance cover booklet issued by OP2 with logo of OP1 on the same granting coverage against liquid, accidental damage, fire and burglary protection for one year with respect to the mobile in question.
3. Notices were issued to OPs on 21.10.2015. OP1, a unit of International Value Retail Pvt. Ltd. entered appearance and filed written statement in which, OP1 while admitting the factum of purchase of the mobile handset in question by complainant from its mobile store located at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, took the preliminary objection that it has no role  and responsibility in relation to any service of repair / insurance / maintenance of any product / mobile phone and is a telecom retailer company into business of selling mobile phones, tablets, mobile phone accessories through its retail stores under its trade name “Mobiliti World”. OP1 submitted that it has been providing platform to OP2 for customers to avail of products / services of insurance schemes packages for their mobile phone / electronic product and OP2 provides insurance cover against theft and damages to its customers against proper invoices issued. OP1 denied having sold any insurance plan of OP2 to the complainant and urged that the burden of proof lies on the complainant to prove that he approached OP2 regarding any damage to the mobile and complaint registered in that regard since services of insurance / repair of mobile phone were undertaken by OP2 and not by OP1 and therefore prayed for dismissal of complaint contending that OP1 had not sold any insurance package to the complainant giving rise to any cause of action.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP1 was filed by the complainant in rebuttal to the defence taken on ground that the insurance from OP2 was taken at the insistence of the staff of OP1 and the insurance plan bore the name of the vendor (OP1) from which the complainant bought the subject mobile phone. The complainant further submitted that at the time of purchase of the mobile phone, OP1 did not issue the bill and initially the complainant was issued an invoice / bill of incorrect date of purchase mentioned therein as 13.12.2014 instead of 11.12.2014 by OP1 and after several visits and delay of 20 days, the salesman of OP1 issued the corrected invoice filed alongwith the complaint after apologizing for his mistake. The complainant further urged that OP1 did so only when he was confronted with the original bill and police intervention and that both OPs are continuing with such malpractices of providing fake  insurance and cheating people and after selling the mobile phone and insurance, both OPs escape from making payment of claim amount / repair charges under baseless excuses  and give false assurance and promise to customers and therefore prayed for relief sought against OPs as being legally entitled to. Complainant has attached the copy of retail invoice dated 13.12.2014 issued by OP1 towards the purchase mobile phone in question.
5. OP2 could not be served due to summons returned unserved with postal remarks “address not found” and “left without address”. Therefore on application of complainant to delete OP2, OP2 was deleted from the array of parties in proceedings held on 17.03.2016.
6. Complainant filed evidence by of affidavit and written arguments reiterating his grievance against the OPs and exhibited the documents relied upon / filed as Ex CW1/A to Ex CW1/D.
7. Evidence by way of affidavit sworn by its Asst. Manager (Legal) and written arguments were filed by OP1 in reassertion of its defence taken in the written statement in which OP1 objected to the complainant not having filed the bill of purchase of insurance scheme from OP1 since the same was never sold by OP1.
8. On directions issued by this Forum on 21.09.2017 to OP1 to furnish last known address of OP2, OP1 placed on record by way of an application address of OP2 as procured from the website of Ministry of Corporate Affair alongwith list of Director.
9. Notices were issued to OP2 on the given address which was served on 02.01.2018. However, none appeared despite service and therefore OP2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.03.3018.
10. During the course of oral arguments, the complainant submitted that OP2 never provided him any bill for the premiums amount of Rs. 999/- paid by him and was only given a pamphlet / booklet by OP2 with plan details, registration process for pick up request, terms and conditions, smart plans features and claim process formalities. Complainant further argued that the invoice no. 1404 dated 11.12.2014 was given subsequently to him by OP1 and initially the invoice dated 13.12.2014 was given to him which is attached with the rejoinder.
11. We have heard the arguments addressed by complainant and have perused the documents placed on record on which perusal a key observation has come to light that the insurance pamphlet / booklet cover note issued by OP2 bears the logo of OP1 which clearly establishes that OP1 and OP2 had mutually beneficial business relationship/ tie up and at behest of OP1, the complainant was coerced into taken insurance cover from OP2. The said exercise was for business promotion of each other in the market for commercial gains. Moreover as per own admission of OP1 in its written statement, OP1 has been providing a platform to OP2 for customers to avail of its insurance plan / scheme securing their electronic gadgets. Therefore the role of OP1 and OP2 in the present complaint and inter se is rather collusive in as much as furthering / promoting each other’s commercial interests.        
12. The subject mobile phone was duly insured with OP2 which is proven beyond doubt from material evidence placed on record by the complainant, corroborated / endorsed by OP1 and un-rebutted by OP2 due to its willful non appearance. 
13. In the present case since the subject mobile was duly insured with OP2 at the behest of OP1 as can be seen from the insurance booklet issued by OP2 and endorsed by logo of OP1, both OP1 and OP2 are liable to pay the insurance claim amount to the complainant since OP1 had received consideration amount for the said handset and OP2 had received premium amount for insuring the said handset from the complainant but both OPs failed to discharge their contractual liability towards the complainant which in our view is act of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  
14.  We therefore direct OP1 and OP2 as seller and insurer respectively jointly and severally to refund the cost of the mobile phone i.e.     Rs. 17,600/- alongwith insurance premium amount of Rs. 999/- totaling Rs. 18,599/- to the complainant. We further direct OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. Let the order be complied with by both OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.                                 
15.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
16.   File be consigned to record room.
17.   Announced on 15.04.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member