Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/466

ShriP.L. BatraS/O Late Shri V.D. Batra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Puneet - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jun 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

Date of institution: 13.07.2015

Complaint Case. No.466/15                                          Date of order: 09.06.2017

IN  MATTER OF

ShriP.L. BatraS/O Late Shri V.D. Batra  R/O A-14 Shish Ram Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Complainant

VERSUS

Mr. Puneet ,New Mobile Care India Pvt. Ltd., WZ-109, Street No.1, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045                                                                                             

Opposite party-1

 

Mr. RajinderVohra, Owner Mobile World India, E341 Milap Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059                                                                                            

Opposite party-2

 

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Briefly facts of the present complaint as stated are that son of the complainant for his wife Mrs. TriptiBatra purchased one mobile hand set make “SAMSUNG 7102” with IEMI no.353202062363440 on09.08.2014 for sale consideration of Rs.20,500/-(Rs. Twenty Thousands Five Hundred) vide invoice no.221 from theopposite party no.2.  He got the mobile insured from theoppositeparty no.1 on persuasion of theopposite party no.2 on premium of Rs.20,50/-(Rs. Two Thousand Fifty) for two years. The invoice and protection plan were prepared /issued by the same person of theopposite party no.2. The mobile handset was stolen from her purse while travelling from Muradabad to Delhi on 08.11.2014. The complainant lodged complaint inBindapur police station, Uttam Nagar and old Delhi Railway Station  on 08.11.2014 and 29.11.2014 respectively. The complainant also informedtheopposite parties no.1 and 2 about the theft. The complainant submitted copy of FIR and untrace report of the police. The complainant also sent all related documents to theopposite party no.1 through WhatsApp no. 9599486618 andhanded  over personally to theopposite party no.2. The complainant several times communicated with theopposite party no.1 to know the status of his claim underthe protection plan. But to no effect. Hence the present complaint for directions to theopposite party no.1 to pay the insured amount and compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment along with miscellaneous expenses.

Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties.But none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties despite service. Therefore, the opposite parties no.1 and 2were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.10.2015 and 03.05.2016 respectively.                   

               When the complainant was asked to lead  ex-arte evidence by way of affidavit, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint and relied upon invoice no.221 dated 09.08.2014, copy of cashless protection plan dated 09.08.2014,Copy of E-Ticket, copy of FIR dated 08.11.2014, letters dated 10.11.2014, 04.12.2014, 11.12.2014, 27.05.2015 and 11.06.2015,  copy of FIR dated 29.11.2014, untrace report dated 15.05.2015 and copy of WhatsApp conversation.

               We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

               There is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted  and unchallenged version of the complainant.

               The complainant from unrebutted and unchallenged affidavit and documents has been able to show that son of the complainantpurchased one mobile hand set make “SAMSUNG 7102” with IEMI no.353202062363440 on 09.08.2014 for sale consideration of Rs.20,500/-(Rs. Twenty Thousands Five Hundred ) vide invoice no.221 from the opposite party no.2 for his wife . He also got the mobile insured from theopposite party no.1 on persuasion of theopposite party no.2 on payment of Rs. 20,50/-(Rs. Two Thousand Fifty) for two years. The mobile handset was stolen and untrace report dated 15.05.2015 was given by Old Delhi railway station, police station. The complainant submitted relevant documents with theopposite party no.1 as per terms and conditions of protection plan for processing the claim.

               Before proceeding further it is worthwhile to re-write section 2 (1)(b)(i) and 2 1(d) and (i) of the Consumer Protection Act  which reads as under:-

Section 2(1)(b) “complainant” means –

(i)           a consumer; or

               …………

Section 2(1)(d) “consumer” means any person who-

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

 

From the bare reading of the relevant provisions section 2(1)(b)(i)and 2(1)(d)(i) of Consumer Protection Act itis clear that the complainant is not a consumer as he has neither bought the goods(mobile handset) for considerationnor he used the goods (mobile handset)with the approval of

 

 

the purchaser(his son) . Hencethe complaint is not maintainable.Resultantly fails and it hereby dismissed.

           

Order pronounced on :09.06.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          (R.S.  BAGRI)

MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT