Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/38/2018

Rajinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Anmol Watches And Electronic (P) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Mohan Jain

11 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                     =======

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/38/2018
Date of Institution	:	17/01/2018
Date of Decision	:	11/02/2019

 

Rajinder Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir Singh, R/o House No.1221, Sec.25, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.      M/s Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Limited, Regd. Office SCO 1012-1013, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Prop.

 

2.      Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, 2^nd Floor, Tower C-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Zonal Officer.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	None for Complainant.
	:	Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.
	:	Sh. Simranjit Singh Sidhu, Adv. and Sh. Tushar Arora, Adv. proxy counsel for Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

 

PER Dr.S.K.Sardana, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased a new Samsung J-710 Galaxy mobile handset from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.14,900/- vide invoice dated 25.01.2017, carrying a warranty of one year. Simultaneously, at the instance of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant also got the said mobile handset insured by paying additional charges, but no receipt was issued to him. On 01.03.2017, the subject mobile handset was snatched from the Complainant by some miscreants, upon which a DDR was lodged. Thereafter, the Complainant made a number of rounds to the Opposite Party No.1, but he was put off on one pretext or the other. However, on the advice of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant even deposited Rs.4470/- vide receipt Annexure C-3, but there was no positive headway. Eventually, a legal notice dated 08.12.2017 was served upon the Opposite Parties, but the same also did not fructify. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Party No.2 contested the Complaint and filed its reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the mobile handset in question was stolen and there was no manufacturing defect in the same. Moreover, the answering Opposite Party has not issued any policy of insurance and has never received any payment in this regard. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 (Opposite Party No.1 being ex-parte).
6.         Perusal of the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 reveals that it has no concern with Opposite Party No.1 in so far as the policy of insurance is concerned. It has come on record that neither there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset nor the insurance policy in question was issued by Opposite Party No.1. The policy in question was issued by Opposite Party No.1. However, Opposite Party No.1 did not appear to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.1 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.1 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the Complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
7.         In the present circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine as he has been made to run from pillar to post for no fault on his part. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Party No.1 has certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have initiate steps to redress the grievance of the Complainant promptly, which it failed to do. At any rate, the Opposite Party No.1 even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant, despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time & again.  Even the legal notices sent to the Opposite Party No.1 failed to fructify. It is important to note that due to the irresponsible attitude of the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant has certainly suffered a lot and forced to file the present unwarranted, uncalled for litigation. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Party No.1 in not redressing the grievance of the Complainant, non-replying the legal notice and non-appearing before this Forum, proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
8.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1 alone, and the same is partly allowed qua it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed:-

[a]    To refund the amount of mobile set of Rs.14,900/- and Rs.4470/- to the Complainant;

 [b]   To pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]    To also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

                The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

 

9.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till these are paid, apart from compliance of the directions as in sub-para [c].
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
11/02/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”