Haryana

Ambala

CC/357/2017

Viney Bakshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Micky Communication - Opp.Party(s)

S.R. Bansal

22 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        : 357 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 25.10.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 22.05.2018

 

 

Viney Bakshi aged about 24 years  son of Shri Ashok Bakshi, resident of House No.1357, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City.

    ……. Complainant

 

 

1.  M/s Micky Communication (Mobile Dealer), near Manav Chowk, Ambala City, through its Proprietor/Owner.

2.  Apps Daily C/o U.B. Insurance Associates, T-305, # 216/13, 4^th Floor, (Apps Daily Claims Division), Suraj Towers, 27^th Cross, 3^rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, Karnataka-560011.

 

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

 

Before:        Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                   Ms. Anamika Gutpa, Member.        

                  

 

Present:        Sh. S.R.Bansal, counsel for complainant.

 OP No.1  proceeded ex parte v.o.d.07.12.2017.

 OP No.2  proceeded ex parte v.o.d.15.05.2018.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased one Apple 6S 32GB Mobile handset (Product of OP No.1) having IMEI No.359220070875019 for a sum of Rs. 27,000/- against Bill no.26668 from OP No.1 on 09.06.2017 with a warranty period of 12 months. After the purchase of said set, the complainant insured the Mobile Set with OP No.2 and thereafter the said set was broken on 01.08.2017. Thereafter the complainant immediately reported this complaint to OP No.2 on 01.0.2017 through mail and after 15-20 days, the insurance was provided by OP No.2 and the officials of the Insurance Company told to the complainant that they will collect his damaged mobile and get it repaired very soon at their own costs, but the officials of the insurance company have not collected the said mobile set from the complainant. He had been waiting for the refund  of the amount, but of no use and ultimately a legal notice dated 20.09.2017 was sent to the Ops through registered letter dated 22.09.2017 but  after the receipt of the notice, neither any payment nor any response was ever received by the complainant  so far, which clearly shown malafide intention with ulterior motive behind it, which is a total deficiency in service, unfair trade practice causing financial loss, mental agony and harassment etc. against the Ops. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notice issued to Op No.1 but none has turned up on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 07.12.2017.  Initially, Sh. Mahinder Bindal has appeared on behalf of OP No.2 but later on he moved an application for withdraw from the complaint,  same was allowed and again new notice was issued to OP No.2 but none appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and  they were proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 15.05.2018.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-10 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased one Apple 6S 32GB Mobile handset having IMEI No.359220070875019 for a sum of Rs.27,000/- against bill no.26668 from OP No.1 (Annexure C-3) with one year warranty which was insured with OP No.2. The complainant alleged that on 01.08.2017, the complainant was going to Ambala City for some personal work when he reached near Kalka Chowk, one call come on his phone, he took side and when he was answering the call during that period one bike has hit to his bike and he fell down and his phone become damage and scratches on the phone which become black as per Annexure C-1. The complainant further alleged that the complainant has lodged the claim and complete all the formalities but the Ops have not settled the claim. The complainant has sent the mail in response to the mail, the insurance company/OP No.2 has sent the following reply as under:-

“Dear Customer, your CIN PDAUG01677 has been approved. Note that you must turn icloud activation lock off, for you phone to be picked up. To check you iPhone’s lock status, click here: icloud.com/activationlock”.

 

 Inspite of that they have not refunded the invoice amount of the mobile in question.  The counsel for the complainant has fairly admitted that the mobile in question in the possession of the complainant. In the present case OPs have also proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant.

6.                In view of above discussion, the insurance company has not paid the insurance amount of handset till today, therefore, the insurance company is deficient in service and OP No.2 is liable to pay insurance amount. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed against OP No.1 as it has only sold the mobile in question as it is to the consumer and  allowed against the OP No.2/insurance company  with cost and is directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To pay the invoice amount Rs. 27,000/-  as per Annexure C-3 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization subject to return the old mobile along with accessories  to the OP No.2.

(ii)     To pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation.

                    Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 22.05.2018

 

          (ANAMIKA  GUPTA)                      (D.N. ARORA)

                 Member                                                              President