DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1271/2014
D.No._______________________ Date: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mrs. AMARPREET KAUR,
W/o SH. PALVINDER SINGH,
R/o H. No.-266/1, D-6,
SEC.-6, ROHINI, DELHI. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. M/s BANSAL TELECOMS,
THROUGH ITS PROP./PRINCIPAL OFFICER,
G-2, R.G. COMPLEX, COMMUNITY CENTER,
SEC.-8, ROHINI, DELHI.
2. M/s SMART MOBILE TOTAL SOLUTION,
THROUGH THE PROP./PARTNER,
HAVING ITS H.O. C-2/16,
YAMUNA VIHAR, DELHI-110053.
ALSO AT: HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE: 89,
BAGICHI MADHO DASS,
OPP.-LAJPAT RAI MARKET,
DELHI-110006. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 27.10.2014 Date of decision: 13.02.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging
CC No.1271/2014 Page 1 of 6
that the complainant purchased a mobile handset model Samsung Galaxy S. Dues, S-7562 with IMEI No. 356637051822764 vide invoice no. 02288/2012-13 dated 03.06.2013 for a sum of Rs.11,500/- from OP-1. Thereafter, the complainant got the said mobile handset insured from OP-2 and the insurance premium of Rs.1,150/- was paid by the complainant to OP-2 and it insured with OP-2 i.e. insurance company vide insurance policy no. DL-27505 for a period of 2 years w.e.f. 03.06.2013 to 02.06.2015 and the insurance risk covered the accidental and water damage to the said mobile handset. In the month of August-2013, there developed the defect in the said mobile handset and the same was repaired by OP-3 i.e. Samsung India and again in the month of November-2013, there developed defect in the said mobile handset and the said mobile handset stopped working properly and accordingly the complainant visited the service center of OP-3 in Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi and the concerned officials of OP-3 told the complainant that there has occurred the water damage to the said mobile handset and the expenses to the same would be Rs.4,000/- and asked the complainant to approach OP-2 to get repaired the said mobile handset at the cost and expenses of OP-2 as the same is insured and covers the risk of water damage during the period upto 02.06.2015 and accordingly the said mobile handset was repaired by OP-2 but inspite of that the mobile handset did not
CC No.1271/2014 Page 2 of 6
function properly. In the month of January-2014, the said mobile handset developed defect and the same was not functioning properly, so the complainant again approached OP-2 for getting the same repaired and the representative of OP-2 took the said mobile handset from the complainant and is keeping the same with them and assured the complainant to give the mobile handset after repair after 15 days. Thereafter, again and again the complainant contacted OP-2 but OP-2 told went on avoiding the same and ultimately on 27.02.2014 the officials of OP-2 told the complainant that the said mobile handset is not worth repair and it cannot be repaired and under the above circumstances and knowing the manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset OP-1 has sold the defective mobile handset to the complainant deliberately and intentionally. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 05.03.2014 to OPs through Regd. A.D. and speed post but OPs failed to make the payment and compensate the complainant who has suffered a loss and further alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to replace the mobile handset as well as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental, physical agony and harassment. Earlier, the complaint was filed impleading Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. as OP-3 but subsequently OP-3 i.e.
CC No.1271/2014 Page 3 of 6
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was deleted from the array of parties on the application of OP-3 vide order dated 01.05.2017.
3. Notice were issued to OP-1 & OP-2 through speed post as well as notice was also published in the newspaper ‘Veer Arjun’ dated 01.11.2017 by the complainant for appearance on 29.11.2017. The notice to OP-1 & OP-2 are deemed to be served by way of publication for appearance on 29.11.2017 but as none for OP-1 & OP-2 appeared and as such OP-1 & OP-2 have been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.01.2018.
4. In order to prove her case, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of retail invoice dated 03.06.2013 for a sum of Rs.11,500/- issued by OP-1, copy of Mobile Phone Protection Plan no. SI. No.DL-27505 for the period from 03.06.2013 to 02.06.2015 alongwith terms & conditions of the policy for a sum of Rs.1,150/- issued by OP-2, copy of Fault Completion Report no. 5181 dated 01.02.2014 issued by OP-2 and copy of legal notice dated 05.03.2014 sent by the complainant through her Counsel to OPs by Speed Post alongwith copies postal receipts.
5. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the
CC No.1271/2014 Page 4 of 6
complainant. Moreover, it appears that even after receiving notices of this case from this Forum, OPs have kept mum and have not bothered to answer the case of the complainant, showing that they have no defence at all in their favour.
6. On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint of her mobile to the service center of OP-2 where the mobile handset was retained for repair but could not be repaired despite the fact that the mobile handset was retained for more than 15 days and it was told to the complainant that the mobile handset is not worth repairs and cannot be repaired. It was the duty of OP-2 to rectify the defect or to replace the product. A customer/ consumer is not expected to file complaint in respect of new product purchased. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of defect in the product. Accordingly, OP-2 being the insurance company is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Admittedly the complainant used the mobile handset for a period of about 7 months.
7. Accordingly, OP-2, is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/- being the proportionate value of the mobile handset on return of original invoice and job sheet and accessories.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.6,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
CC No.1271/2014 Page 5 of 6
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards cost of litigation.
8. The above amount shall be paid by OP-2 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-2 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-2 fails to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 13th day of February, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.1271/2014 Page 6 of 6
UPLOADED BY : SATYENDRA JEET
