BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 118 of 2017
Date of Institution : 26.5.2017
Date of Decision : 27.2.2018.
Ram Krishan Goyal, aged 50 years son of Shri Madan Lal Goyal, resident of Rama Opticals, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Ridhisidhi Mobiles, Opp. Arya Primary School, Sadar Bazaar, Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Incharge.
2. Syska Gadget Secure (Blanket Cover for devices) Insurer of the Mobile Set, C/o Leehan Retails Pvt. Limited 4, SSK, Saphire, Plaza Pune, Airport Road, Near Symbiosis College, Pune- 411014.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, 2nd, 3rd & 4th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43 Gurgaon- 122009 through its M.D/ Authorized person.
4. Customer Care Service Centre ‘ Syska Gadget Secure B2x Ghansoli, Shop No.1 Surya Kiran CHS Flat No.12-13, Sector-5, Ghansoli- West, District Thane (Maharashtra).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rakesh Pareek, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Sh. Rishabh Goyal proxy counsel of Sh. A.S.Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
Opposite party no.4 exparte.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased one mobile set make Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge against cash amount of Rs.56,000/- vide invoice No.10747 dated 26.5.2016 and op no.1 had given one year guarantee/ warrantee of the mobile. The op no.1 also allured the complainant for the insurance of mobile set as the mobile set is costly and the complainant under the allurement of op purchased the insurance plan launched by op no.2. The complainant purchased the Gadget covering value between Rs.25000-26000/- which was thereafter duly registered by op no.1 of its own vide coupon code no.29284081. The validity of the insurance plan was for the period of one year from the date of registration. That thereafter during the subsisting period of insurance plan, the mobile set of the complainant has suffered damages as the display of the mobile set was broken, hence the complainant accordingly approached the op no.1 and claimed the compensation on account of damages to the mobile set upon which the op no.1 checked the mobile set and being satisfied out of the damages to the mobile set within the guaranty period and insurance period, the op no.1 talked about it with the ops no.2 and 3 and after telephonic conversation, the ops no.1 to 3 referred the complainant to the op no.4 and accordingly the complainant deposited the damaged mobile set with the op no.4 through courier service and the damaged mobile set was duly delivered and the same was accordingly received by the op no.4. The complainant also got registered the complaint vide complaint No.1702265976 from his mobile No.94160-23034. That thereafter ops failed to redress the grievance of complainant even after lapse of sufficient time and complainant paid visit at the shop of the op no.1 time and again and also raised complaint with the ops but the ops knowingly out of their malafide put off the complainant with one pretext or the other. The ops are liable for the disbursement of the claim of damaged mobile set being within the Insurance/Gadget plan. The complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for unnecessary harassment besides replacement of mobile set or refund of the amount of Rs.56,000/- alongwith interest from 26.5.2016 till realization besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, estoppal, concealment of true and material facts etc. It is further submitted that the complainant has not purchased any gadget insurance policy from the answering op, because the answering op is not doing the business of selling such insurance policies of the op no.2. Hence, for any grievance towards op no.2, the answering op is not liable in any manner. It is further submitted that answering op is only seller of the mobile of op no.3-company and for all the grievances of complainant regarding mobile in question, the op no.3 company and its service centre are liable and responsible and there is no liability upon answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed separate written statement and submitted that the complainant had intimated to answering op about damage to mobile and answering op had forwarded the claim to insurance company along with estimate prepared by B2X service solution India Private Limited. As per estimate the insurance company had approved the amount as per estimate. Thereafter, the mobile set was repaired by B2X service solution India Private Limited and same is delivered after repair to complainant through B2X service solution India Private Limited. The answering opposite party had provided the best services to the complainant being a facilitator. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering op. It is worth to mention here that the insurance terms and condition were delivered at the time of purchase of insurance scheme in form of booklet and in form of soft copy at the time of activation the mobile for insurance scheme. It is further submitted that the insurance company has already approved the claim of the complainant and delivered the handset to the customer through B2X after repair.
4. Opposite party no.3 also appeared and also filed separate reply taking preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and concealment of true facts. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the complaint makes it amply clear that the cause of action, if any, arises only against the insurer of the said unit as the complainant himself admitted in para no.4 of the complaint that the alleged unit got damaged due to mishandling and it is one of the conditions of warranty provided by the answering op that, if the unit got damaged due to negligence of the customer, the warranty becomes void and the repair of the unit will be on chargeable basis. It is further submitted that there is no privity of contract between the answering op and the insurer of the unit and the seller of unit. It is further submitted that complainant in regards to his complaint approached the answering op on 15.9.2016 vide call and reported issues in the display of the unit in question. The engineer of the answering op checked the unit and found that display of the unit was broken. The engineer informed the complainant that the unit cannot be considered under warranty as company provides a warranty of one year from the date of purchase of unit and warranty is subject to some conditions and one of the conditions is that if the unit is damaged due to mishandling, warranty becomes void, and accordingly any repairs shall be done on chargeable basis. The complainant agreed upon and unit got repaired i.e. display got replaced and complainant took the delivery of the unit on the same day i.e. 15.9.2016 to his full satisfaction. It is further submitted that warranty provided by the answering op covers only such defects which arise out of faulty workmanship or manufacturing defect. After that, the complainant never reported any issue regarding his unit and without any cause of action, directly filed the present complaint.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of job card Ex.C3, copy of insurance details Ex.C4. On the other hand, op no.3 produced affidavit of Anindya Bose Ex.R1, copy of acknowledgement of service request Ex.R2, copy of warranty card Ex.R3. Ld. counsel for op no.2 has tendered written statement as Ex.R4 and copy of terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex.R5. OP no.1 produced affidavit of Sohan Lal, Proprietor Ex. R6.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The complainant in order to prove his case has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the facts as mentioned in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of bill Ex.C2, job card Ex.C3 and copy of insurance details as Ex.C4. On the other hand, op no.3 produced affidavit of Anindya Bose Ex.R1, copy of acknowledgement of service request Ex.R2 and copy of warranty card Ex.R3. Whereas, op no.2 tendered their written statement in evidence as Ex. R4 and copy of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as Ex.R5. OP no.1 produced affidavit of Sohan Lal, Proprietor as Ex. R6. It is proved on record that complainant purchased one mobile set make Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge against cash amount of Rs.56,000/- vide invoice No.10747 dated 26.5.2016 and op no.1 had given one year guarantee/ warrantee of the mobile. He also purchased the insurance plan of op no.2 through op no.1. It is also proved fact that the mobile set of the complainant suffered damages as display of the mobile set had broken within the warranty and insurance period. The complainant sent the damaged mobile set to op no.4 through courier service and the same was received by the op no.4. As per the version of the complainant, since ops failed to redress the grievance of complainant even after lapse of long time, he is entitled to replacement of the mobile set with new one with the extended insurance thereon or to refund of the amount of Rs.56000/- plus interest from 26.5.2016 till realization of amount.
8. On the other hand there is specific plea of the op no.2 in their written statement that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this forum. Complainant had intimated to answering op about damage to mobile and answering op had forwarded the claim to insurance company along with estimate prepared by B2X service solution India Private Limited. As per estimate, the insurance company had approved the amount as per estimate. Thereafter, the mobile set was repaired by B2X service solution India Private Limited and same is delivered to the complainant after repair.
9. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the complainant has not denied the fact that the mobile set has not been delivered to the complainant but however he insisted that some compensation be awarded to the complainant as he has suffered losses due to damage of his mobile set. The perusal of the record reveals that the mobile was duly repaired and delivered to the complainant well within time but however the complainant did not intimate to his counsel about it nor any application was moved by the complainant qua the fact that he has already received the mobile set. Rather while furnishing his affidavit Ex.C1 which has been furnished on 8.1.2018 i.e. after filing of written statements by ops, the complainant has not uttered even a single word that he has already received the mobile set from the op no.4 after duly repair. So, it appears that the complainant has concealed all the facts while furnishing his affidavit Ex.C1 and as such he is not entitled for any compensation and ops are not found deficient in service.
10. In view of above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:27.2.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
