DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.139 of 16-05-2017

Decided on 17-10-2017

Harish Bansal aged about 30 years S/o Jagan Nath R/o Near Istri Satsang Bhawan, Ward No.16, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Bhagwati Telecom, Thana Road, Maur Mandi-151509, District Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner.

2.Syska Gadget Secure, Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, Sapphira Plaza, Plot No.80, S.No.232, New Airport Road Near Symbosis Cottage, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.Ravinder Singla, Advocate.

For opposite parties: Ex-parte.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Harish Bansal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties M/s Bhagwati Telecom and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Samsung mobile handset having model No.5210 for a sum of Rs.9590/- vide retail invoice No.7399 dated 13.7.2016 from opposite party No.1 with one year warranty/guarantee for his personal use. At the time of selling the mobile handset, officials of opposite party No.2 were also there. They allured the complainant to get his mobile handset insured with opposite party No.2. It was conveyed that in case of any type of physical defect, theft, breakage and damages etc. within one year from the date insurance commence, they will make the payment regarding claim to the complainant immediately. Being assured by opposite party No.2, the complainant got insured his mobile handset after making payment of Rs.800/- to opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1. The fact regarding insurance was also confirmed by the complainant from opposite party No.1 telephonically.It confirmed the insurance of the mobile handset, but no terms and conditions of the insurance policy were ever supplied to the complainant by opposite parties.

3. It is alleged that in the end of March 2017, the mobile handset became damaged as when the complainant was going in the market, the mobile handset fell down from his pocket. Due to this, the mobile handset became totally damaged. The complainant gave intimation regarding loss immediately to opposite party No.1 as well as opposite party No.2. Accordingly, the officials of opposite party No.2 asked the complainant to handover the mobile handset to opposite party No.1 and directed him to submit his ID proof, invoice, bank account detail, photocopy of his D.L. He deposited the damaged mobile handset alongwith other required documents with opposite party No.1, who further sent the same to opposite party No.2. Thereafter opposite party No.2 made call to the complainant and assured him that his lawful claim amount shall be paid to him shortly.

4. It is further alleged that opposite party No.2 has rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the invoice date is edited, hence it is not admissible under the policy and opposite party No.2 sent back the mobile handset to the complainant.

5. It is further alleged that the rejection of lawful claim of the complainant only on the basis of minor cutting, inadvertently done by opposite party No.1, is illegal, null and void and liable to be set-aside. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and requested it to rectify the invoice, it corrected the date on the invoice and put its stamp on the bill. The complainant again sent copy of the invoice to opposite party No.2 and requested it to settle his lawful claim and to make the payment, but opposite party No.2 did not accept the invoice and illegally and against law and facts rejected his claim.

6. It is also alleged that opposite party No.2 very well knows that the mobile handset was purchased by the complainant on 13.7.2016 and period of insurance commenced from 13.7.2016 to 12.7.2017. Opposite party No.2 cannot deny the claim of the complainant only on the ground that there is overwriting in the bill.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed for settle of lawful claim of the complainant to make the payment of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.9590/- with interest @ 12% per annum; Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

7. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.

8. Complainant was asked to produce evidence.

9. In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of invoice, (Ex.C1); photocopy of insurance card, (Ex.C2); photocopies of e-mails, (Ex.C3 to Ex.C5); his affidavit dated 8.9.2017, (Ex.C6) and closed the evidence.

10. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully.

11. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above.

12. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

13. The complainant has placed on record copy of invoice, (Ex.C1) to prove that he has purchased the mobile handset. It is case of the complainant that the mobile handset was got insured from opposite party No.2. Of-course, the insurance card is also placed on record as Ex.C2. Copy of e-mails, (Ex.C3 and Ex.C4) also support this averment of the complainant. Opposite party No.2 has rejected the claim vide e-mails, (Ex.C3 and Ex.C4) on the ground that purchase invoice date is edited in the invoice. Hence, the claim is not admissible. Opposite parties have not quoted any terms and conditions under which the claim is rejected. Opposite party No.2 has also not come forward to contest the claim of the complainant and justify the rejection of claim. In these circumstances, we hold that rejection of claim is not justified and it amounts to deficiency in service.

14. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.2 and dismissed qua opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is directed to get the needful done as per terms and conditions of warranty.

15. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

16. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

17. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    17-10-2017

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member