Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/294/2016

Ravinder Kumar S/o Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aarti Agencies - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Saini

26 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                   Complaint No.294 of 2016.

                                                                                    Date of Institution:26.8.2016.

                                                                                    Date of Decision:26.9.2017.

Ravinder Kumar son of Sh. Om Parkash age 55 years, resident of H.No.8/3, Hydel Colony, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                               ..Complainant

Versus

 

1.         M/s Aarti Agencies, Shivaji Market, Yamuna Nagar through its Prop/Owner.

2.         Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. GE Plaza Air Port Road, Yerawada, Pune 411006 through its GM

                                                                                                              ..Respondents.

Before:           SH. SATPAL …………….    PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND……….….MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh.S.S.Saini, Advocate for complainant.

              Sh.Nitin Arora, Advocate, for OP No.1.

              Sh.Rajiv Gupta, Advocate for Op No.2.

 

ORDER   :     (SATPAL, PRESIDENT).

 

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as OPs). 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant had purchased a LED make ONIDA Model No.LEO4OFRZ1000 from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- having one year warranty.  At the time of purchase, the complainant had got extended the warranty of product for the period from 18.1.2016 to 17.1.2018, on the advice of the OP No.1, after the expiry of manufacturer warranty of one year and for this extended warranty OP No.2-Insurance Company have charged an amount of Rs.2925/- against proper receipt.  After purchase of LED, on the same day, the product started giving problem of picture/screen.  The complainant contacted the OP No.1 with the problem in the LED, on which the OP No.1 changed the product in question with new one with the make Samsung 32”  of the same amount i.e. Rs.40000/- and issued a fresh bill No.7258, dated 18.1.2015.  In this regard, extended warranty of the product was also to be changed in the cover note of policy with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.  The complainant contacted the Op No.2 to issue the Insurance policy of new product i.e. Samsung LED but OP No.2 did not hear the genuine request of the complainant and not up-dated the particulars of Samsung Product in their record and issued only cover note.  On 30.3.2016 the LED in question gave problem in the display of LED and screen gave dark impression and nothing was seen in the LED and a complaint was lodged on local office as well as online.  On 13.4.2016, again a complaint was also lodged with Sh.Pawan Kumar Service center of Op No.2 but of no use.  Again, a complaint was lodged on 19.4.2016 bearing No.45582546.  The complainant contacted the local office of Insurance Company as well as Samsung Service Centre for its repair free of costs as Samsung Electronic India Ltd. has tie up with the Insurance Company being the cashless policy.  The OP No.2 did not hear the genuine request of the complainant.  On 25.4.2016, the local office of the OP No.2 had advised and told the complainant to get the LED in question repaired on cash payment and repair amount is to be refunded after receiving the bill/cash memo etc.  The complainant got repaired LED from the service centre of Samsung at Yamuna Nagar on the assurance of the OP No.2 and spent Rs.18426/- on LED in question vide bill No.CR-285, dated 6.5.2016.  The OP No.2 has not made the payment of repair charges Rs.18426/- till date as the complainant has lodged so many complaints with the OP No.2 on toll free number, numbers of the company as well as local office of OP No.2 and visited the branch office of Op No.2 at Yamuna Nagar but OP No.2 did not hear the genuine request of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.2 and prayed for directing the OP No.2 to pay Rs.18,426/- to the complainant along with interest @24% p.a. on account of repair of LED which were spent by the complainant and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.5500/- as cost of litigation.

3.                     Upon notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written statement separately.  The Op No.1, while filing the written statement, took some preliminary objections alleging therein that the complaint is not maintainable as the answering Op is only the seller of the products but warranty is always provided by the manufacturer; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  On merits, the OP No.1 submitted that the complainant had purchased a LED make ONIDA from the answering OP.  However, it is wrong that the answering OP had given any advice to purchase extended warranty from OP No.2, rather the complainant himself purchased the said extended warranty and the answering OP has no concern in the dealing between the complainant and OP No.2.  It is submitted that on the request of the complainant the answering Op had changed the ONIDA LED and has given the new LED of Samsung make of the same price to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP No.1.

4.                     The OP No.2 while filing the written statement took some preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP-company; the complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; in this case, the complainant got insured from answering OP one ONIDA LED under Serial No.000532 Invoice No.7804, Model LEO40FRZ1000 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- invoice dated 18.1.2015 in the name of Ravinder Kumar vide which they said ONIDA LED was insured for extended warranty for two years from 18.1.2016 to 17.1.2018.  The OP company never insured the Samsung LED of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint in question.  No insurance cover note or insurance policy was ever issued by the OP-company in respect of Samsung LED and the alleged insurance cover in question is just a proposal form which has neither been accept by the OP-company nor any policy has been issued against the same.  The dealing between the complainant and OP No.1 in respect of exchange of insured LED was not in the knowledge of the answering OP prior to this complaint and as soon as the insured LED was returned by the complainant to OP No.1 and was exchanged with LED of different description, the contract between complainant and the OP-company came to an end.  Insured asset means a physical object which is the subject matter of insurance under this policy and appears specifically on the schedule.  On merits, controverted the plea taken by the complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Op and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5.                     To prove the case the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as annexure CA, documents such as extended warranty policy schedule as annexure C.1, copy of bill dated 18.1.2015 as annexure C.2, copy of proposal form as annexure C.3 and copy of bill dated 6.5.2016 as annexure C.4.

6.                     On the other hand the counsel for the Op No.1 did not file any evidence and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.1.

7.                     The counsel for Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Navjeet Singh, Assistant Manager as annexure R.2/A, document such as extended warranty policy schedule as annexure R.2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it is admitted fact that the complainant has earlier purchased LED make ONIDA model No.LEO40FRZ1000 having warranty of one year, which was got insured by the complainant under extended warranty.  Immediately, the above said LED was got replaced with another LED of Samsung 32” for which the cover note was got refilled by the OP No.1.  The counsel for the complainant further argued that the extended warranty was purchased by the complainant on the advice of the OP No.1 because the complainant was only the purchaser and he was not having any knowledge regarding extended warranty.  At the time taking the premium, the Ops were polite and when the claim is required to be paid they have concocted this false story, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the complainant and prayed for acceptance of complaint.

9.                     On the other hand the learned counsel for the OP No.1 reiterated the stand taken in the written statement and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua the answering OP.

10.                   The counsel for the OP No.2 during the course of arguments reiterated the stand taken in the written statement and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua the answering OP.

11.                   After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it is clear that the complainant purchased the LED firstly of ONIDA and later on changed/replaced the same with LED of Samsung 32”.  It is also clear from annexure C.1 that the first ONIDA LED was insured with the OP No.2 vide policy No.OG-15-1000-6609-00269380 and after replacing the first LED with LED of Samsung as is clear from annexure C.2, the same was insured vide cover No.SF19926745 as is clear from annexure C.3.  The plea taken by the OP No.1 that they had never given advice to the complainant to purchase extended warranty is not believable because the complainant is only the purchaser/consumer and who had no knowledge regarding the purchase of extended warranty, so the Op No.1 by taking this plea has tried to save his skin from the liability which he cannot do so.  Secondly, the plea taken by the OP No.2 that the company never insured the LED of Samsung is also falsified from the fact that in para no.5 & 6 of the preliminary objections the Op-company alleged that “the alleged insurance cover note mentioned as C.3 in the complaint in question is just a proposal form which has neither been accepted nor any policy has been issued against the same”.  This plea of OP No.2 is not tenable as the product has already been got changed by complainant which was in their knowledge as is clear from annexure C.3 wherein name of product i.e.LED of Samsung has been mentioned.  So in view of the above said discussion, we are of the considered view that the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is proved and the complainant is entitled for the relief.

12.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to pay Rs.18,426/- to the complainant along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization jointly and severally and further to pay Rs.3300/- as cost of proceedings. Order be complied within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court:26.9.2017.

                                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT.

 

 (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)       (S.C. SHARMA)

  MEMBER.                                         MEMBER