| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.301 of 2.8.2016 Decided on: 2.8.2017 Akhil Sharma son of Sh.Satya Narayan Dutt, resident of House No.1202, S.S.T. Nagar, Patiala (Punjab) 147001. …………...Complainant Versus 1. Mr.Arun Menon,CEO & Founder, Appasdaily Solution Pvt.Ltd., 6th Floor,C Wing Estate, Chandivli Farm Road, Mumbai-400072. 2. Sh.Manjit Singh Head of Chandigarh Circle, Appsdaily Solution Pvt. Ltd.SCO2473 & 2474, Sector 22C, Chandigarh. 3. Appsdaily Solution Pvt. Ltd., Cc 1066 Sewak Plaza, ear Columbia Hospital, Bhupinder Road, Near 22 No.Phatak, Patiala through its Dealing Officer. 4. NEW Mobile HUT,SCO 42, Leela Bhawan, Near Canara Bank, Patiala, through its Proprietor. …………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Hemant Nanda,Adv. counsel for the complainant. Sh.M.LSharma,Advocate,counsel for O.P. No.2. O.Ps. No.1,3&4 ex-parte. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one mobile phone make Samsung, Note 4- SM –N910, Charcoal Black from OP no.4 for an amount of Rs.41,000/- on 30.6.2015.As per the advice of OP no.4, he got the same insured by purchasing an insurance policy from the agent of Appsdaily Solution Pvt. Ltd. i.e.OP no.3 through cash payment, wherein it had insured the complainant’s mobile phone against physical and liquid damage for one year. It is averred that on 15th May,2016, the mobile phone of the complainant got damaged accidently due to water and the complainant immediately filed claim through OP’s website. The OPs informed the complainant that they had received his claim and sent the complainant’s claim intimation number (i.e. ADD 160516197675299) vide their e-mail dated 16.5.2016 and also advised the complainant to visit the Appsdaily Connect Centre. Again at 6.45P.M. on 16.5.2016, OPs again informed the complainant to contact Apps daily connect centre. As per the directions, the complainant contacted the local office and completed all the requisite formalities and deposited the mobile phone with the local office alongwith Rs.500/- .Local official told the complainant to collect the mobile phone after 21 days at the most, due to which the complainant purchased a new mobile phone worth Rs.17000/- for his daily official use. On 23.5.2016 at about 4.55PM the complainant received an e-mail from approvals@ubi associates.com., wherein it was stated that on the basis of the scanned documents the insurance company has processed the claim on ‘repair basis’ and the assessed claim amount works out to Rs.14,200/-.The complainant visited local official several times to collect the mobile phone but the OP kept on lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. On 23.6.2016, the complainant sent an e-mail to Mr.Arun Menon, the founder and CEO of Appsdaily Solution Pvt. Ltd. and on the same very day, the complainant received a call from the representative of Appsdaily Solution Pvt. Ltd. from Chandigarh that the complainant should collect his mobile phone from Chandigarh. Accordingly, the complainant informed his friend Mr.Deep Goyal to collect the mobile phone and the very next day the complainant received the mobile phone.It is averred that on using the mobile phone, the complainant found that the mobile phone was not working properly and the complainant informed Mr.Ankit P.A. to Mr.Arun Menon, who told the complainant to re-submit the mobile phone to their local office as soon as possible. Due to some family function, the complainant was busy and on 30.6.2016 he deposited the mobile phone with the local office and also informed Mr.Arun Menon through e-mail. The complainant again sent an e-mail to Mr.Arun Menon on 6.7.2016 but the OPs did not return the mobile phone to the complainant. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment at the hands of the OPs. As the problem occurred in the mobile phone during the warranty period, OPs were bound to rectify the same and failure on their part to rectify the same amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
- On notice, OPs No.1&4 failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against exparte. Representative o OP no.3 appeared but failed o file written version despite availing several opportunities and was ultimately proceeded against ex-parte. Whereas OP no.2 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. The only plea taken up by OP no.2 is that it is a service centre of the company and it is only liable to repair the mobile phone if it is repairable and the liability to pay for its repair is of OPs no.1&3 that too as per the terms and conditions and the procedure mentioned in the user manual. After denying all the averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C8 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Manjit Singh,Ex.OPA and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for OP no.2 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C1, is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone from Op no.4 for an amount of Rs.41000/- on 30.6.2015 and he also got the said mobile phone insured from Appsdaily by paying a sum of Rs.2400/-,whereby the mobile phone of the complainant was insured against any physical or liquid damage for one year. The said mobile phone functioned properly for some time and on 16.5.2016 it got accidently damaged due to water and the complainant sent an e-mail Ex.C2 to Appsdaily . Appsdaily told the complainant to approach OP no.3 and as per its direction, he got the mobile phone deposited with OP no.3 alongwith a sum of Rs.500/- on 16.5.2016. Op no.3 returned the mobile phone on 23.6.2016. On using the same, the complainant found that it was not working properly and he again got the mobile phone deposited with Op no.3 on 2.7.2016 as per the job sheet i.e. Ex.C6.Since 2.7.2016, the said mobile phone has been lying with OP no.3 who has neither rectified the defect nor returned the mobile phone to the complainant. Though on 2.7.2016 when the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.3, it was beyond warranty but this fact can not be ignored that the mobile phone in question got defective during warranty period and inspite of repairing the same by the OPs the defect could not be rectified.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OPs no.1,2&3 to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.41000/- to the complainant i.e. the price of the mobile phone. OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED: 2.8.2017 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
