BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.336 of 2017
Date of Instt. 14.09.2017
Date of Decision: 24.01.2018
Pooja Gupta aged about 31 years W/o Rajiv Gupta R/o 10, New Laxmi Pura, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Mobile House, H.O. Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd., Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its proprietor/partner/director.
M/s Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd., D-3137, Oberoi Garden Estates, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-4000072, through its proprietor/partner/director.
..….…Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. KK Gupta, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
OP No.1 exparte.
OP No.2 Dismissed as Withdrawn.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OP No.1 is indulged in the business of cell phones and also appointed as franchise by the OP No.2 under the name and style of M/s Mobile House. The OP No.2 is a company, who is running their business of insurance of new cell phones through their franchise. On 24.08.2016, the complainant purchased a Samsung mobile phone model No.J700F having IMEI No.358425079746530, vide Invoice No.25338 dated 24.08.2016, for amounting to Rs.12,500/- from the OP No.1. After issuing the Invoice of mobile phone, the OP No.1 told the complainant that they are franchise of noticee No.2, which is engaged in the business of insurance of mobile phones and the OP No.1 allured the complainant to get the handset insured with them. The OP No.1 has also assured the complainant that if any problem occurs in the mobile within one year from the date of purchase, then the OP No.1 will repair/replace the same free of cost. The OP No.1 also assured the complainant that if she buys the insurance cover for her handset, then he will provide mobile protection of her cell phone from theft, burglary, liquid and any kind of physical damage also. That as per assurance given by the OP No.1, the complainant relied upon his words and purchased the above said handset alongwith insurance cover from the OP No.1. The complainant has paid Rs.1249/- to the OP No.1 as one time insurance premium. The OP issued an Invoice bearing No.25343 dated 24.08.2016 to the complainant.
2. That on 18.08.2017, the cell phone of the complainant accidentally fallen down and the Octa (display), back cover of the mobile phone damaged/broken. Then the complainant visited the showroom of the OP No.1 and asked him for repair/replace of the mobile handset, but the OP No.1 simply refused to do the same. When the complainant asked the OP No.1 that he had charged Rs.1249/- for insurance cover and had given assurance that he will repair/replace the handset if their exist any problem with the handset within one year from the date of purchase, but the OP No.1 refused to redress the grievance of the complainant and thereafter, the complainant approached the Samsung Service Centre on 19.08.2017 and got the estimate of the repair of the said amount, which comes to Rs.4289/-. As a process of filing a claim/complaint of broken handset, an email was also sent to the OP No.2 to lodge the complaint/claim. The OP No.1 and 2 have played fraud with the complainant intentionally. The OP No.1 as franchisee of the noticee No.2 have received an amount of Rs.1249/- for the insurance cover of above said handset and issued his own cash memo/invoice to the complainant, just to cheat her. Both the OPs are played fraud with the complainant by their act and conduct intentionally. Act and conduct of both the parties amounts to unfair trade practice and it is a great negligence and deficiency in service on their part and accordingly, a cause of action accrued to file the present complaint, to the complainant and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the purchase price of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.12,500/- and to pay Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental tension, agony, inconvenience and also to pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- .
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service, OP No.1 did not come present and ultimately, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas counsel for the complainant, vide separate statement dated 15.11.2017 got withdrawn the complaint against OP No.2.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the exparte evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also scanned the case file very minutely.
6. After taking into consideration the brief story as elaborated in the complaint, it has become clear that the complainant has purchased a mobile handset from OP No.1, after making a payment of its price i.e. Rs.12,500/- on 24.08.2016 and accordingly, the OP No.1 issued invoice/bill i.e. Ex.C-1 and further on the allurement of the OP No.1, the complainant also got insurance of the said mobile and for that purpose, the complainant has paid a lump-sum premium of Rs.1249/- for one year to the OP No.1 and accordingly, the OP No.1 issued the receipt Ex.C-2 alongwith terms and conditions of the policy printed on the Envelope under the heading of “apps daily” and as per the said Envelope, the Mrp. of the insurance has been mentioned Rs.1249/- and protection against the product is also mentioned as under:-
Physical Damage
Liquid Damage
Theft
Data-loss
Viruses
7. From the aforesaid documents, it has become clear that the OP No.1 issued invoice as well as bill of premium charges on the printed receipt, in the name of complainant and as such, the OP No.1 is liable to indemnify the complainant for the damages any cause to the mobile set and accordingly, as per version of the complainant, his mobile phone got damaged on 18.08.2017, within a period of 12 months from the date of inception of the policy i.e. 24.08.2016 and accordingly, the complainant approached to the OP No.1, but he did not bother to repay the said claim amount and then the complainant got the services of the Samsung Service Centre, Near Bus Stand, Jalandhar and got issued an estimate of the damages caused to the mobile phone. The said estimate is produced on the file by the complainant Ex.C-4 and as per estimate, the loss caused to the mobile, is Rs.4289/-. So accordingly, we come to conclusion that the complainant is entitled for the repair charges of the mobile phone from the OP No.1.
8. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is exparte partly accepted and OP No.1 is directed to pay the repair charges as calculated by the Service Centre of Samsung i.e. Rs.4289/- and further OP No.1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
24.01.2018 Member President
