Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/762/2022

MUKESH PANDIT - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR. SACHIN GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/762/2022
Date of Institution	:	09/11/2022
Date of Decision	:	02/08/2024

       

                                               

                       

 

 

Mukesh Pandit s/o Sh. Devender Nath Sharma c/o H.No.3115, Sector 44D, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant

Versus

1.Mr. Sachin Gupta, Sachin Mobile World, Opposite Kamal Studio, Ner Chowk, District Mandi, H.P.175008.

2. Samsung Service Center, SCO 465-466, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh 160035.

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
ARGUED BY:
	Complainant in person.
	OPs ex-parte.

       

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint pleading that he is an advocate by profession and located at Chandigarh. In the month of March 2021, when the complainant went to Mandi in connection with his court cases, he stopped at the shop of OP-1 for the repair of his mobile phone and there he saw some brand new mobiles but could not purchase the same due to shortage of time and unavailability of cash payment.  However, on request of OP-1, complainant booked one mobile phone make Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra with 5G features costing around Rs.1,04,999/-. Thereafter, one friend of the complainant made cash payment of Rs.70,000/- at the shop and complainant transferred an amount of Rs.30,000/- through online transaction from his account of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Chandigarh.  Rest of the amount of Rs.4,999/- was paid from the pocket of complainant’s friend.  On the purchase of mobile phone, complainant alleged that OP-1 insisted on getting insurance coverage for protecting any loss or damage including breakage or theft etc.  Hence, believing the OP, complainant transferred an amount of Rs.3,800/- from his account and got the mobile phone insured. The complainant received his mobile phone on 25.3.2021 and kept on using the same for his professional usage.  In the month of June 2021, the said phone got damaged due to slip on the road. The complainant visited the shop of OP-1 for getting  insurance claim for the back panel of the mobile set but the OP satisfied him that it is a cheap item and he should not claim it against insurance coverage and the insurance claim  should always be taken against big damage like screen damage or software breakdown.  The complainant paid Rs.4,300/- and got back panel replaced from Samsung Store, Sector 22, Chandigarh. The complainant further alleged that in the month of February 2022, when he was returning home from office, he met with an accident and his wrist watch and mobile phone got damaged.  The mobile phone was completely broken from the front screen and back panel was also damaged. The complainant called OP-1 who suggested him to visit the shop at Mandi (H.P) from Chandigarh. The complainant visited the shop of OP-1 on 7.3.2022 for getting the claim of his front screen and back panel, however, OP-1 requested him to visit again for the replacement. When the complainant requested OP-1 to disclose the name of the insurance company, OP-1 failed to do so and in return shared one screen shot. The complainant requested to close the claim as the time of insurance would get lapsed on 24.3.2022 but OP-1 assured to get replacement of the back panel and front screen within one week i.e. 14.3.2022.  On 23.3.2022, complainant again went to the shop of OP-1 to get his claim and replacement of front screen and back panel but OP-1 showed its helplessness to redress any of his grievances.  On the instructions of OP-1, complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,599/- to the account of Samsung Service Centre on 23.3.2022 for getting the claim settled. OP-1 deferred the complainant’s claim by simply rejecting the same being out of warranty.  The complainant also sent legal notice dated 25.9.2022 but in vain.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking refund of the amounts of Rs.1,04,999/- & Rs.1,599/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2.        Despite due service, OP-1 & OP-2 did not put in appearance before this Commission and accordingly they were proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 22.2.2023 and 25.5.2023 respectively.
3.        The complainant filed affidavit and documents in support of his case.
4. We have heard the complainant in person and gone through the documents on record, including written arguments.
5.        The main issue involved in the present consumer complaint is whether there is any commitment on the part of the OPs to get the mobile phone in question insured from the insurance company or not? 

              In order to find out answer to above mentioned question, the following facts and circumstances are necessary to be discussed.

6.        The complainant has alleged in his consumer complaint that he had purchased the mobile phone from OP-1 and also transferred an amount of Rs.3,800/- from his account for its insurance and OP-1 never disclosed the name of the insurance company.  However, there is nothing on record that OP-1 had ever committed to the complainant that they will get the mobile phone of the complainant insured from insurance company.  The complainant had purchased the mobile phone in question on 24.3.2021 and thereafter there is nothing on record that he had ever filled up proposal form of any insurance company, suggested by OP-1, for getting the mobile phone in question insured. 
7.        The complainant has alleged that he had made the payment without knowing the name or details of the insurance company.  However, it is not believable that a legal person, who is an advocate by profession, will not fill up the proposal form of the insurance company and without filling up the proposal form he will believe that the OP will be able to get his mobile phone insured without even obtaining his signatures on the proposal form as well as policy of the insurance company.   The complainant has nowhere mentioned that he had filled the proposal form or signed the policy of any insurance company towards the insurance of his mobile phone.  Hence, without having any insurance policy in favour of the complainant regarding his mobile phone, he cannot hold the OPs liable for any kind of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

              It is worth mentioning that the name of the insurance company and its policy is taken into account before making the payment. Until and unless the proposal form or policy form is filled up and signed by the consumer, no policy can be issued in his/her favour.  Moreover, it is the duty of the complainant to prove the allegations of his consumer complaint and further it is settled position of the law that the case of the complainant should stand on its own legs but he has failed to prove the same.

8.        In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the present consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
10.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced 02/08/2024 hg	(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER