BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.315 of 2015
Date of Instt. 24.7.2015
Date of Decision : 09.06.2016
Kulbhushan Bagha son of Rajinder Parsad R/o 66, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1.M/s R/s Mobile House, MH Road, Jalandhar C/o M/s Raja Mobiles, 501, New Model House, Jalandhar through its Prop./Authorized Signatory.
2.M/s Royal Green Services Pvt Ltd., C-127, 3rd Floor, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi.
3.M/s D.T.Elecronics Pvt Ltd., Importers of Gionee Mobiles, Registered Office:-363-364, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its MD/Authorized Signatory.
4.M/s Sri Communication, Shop No.65, First Floor, GS Bajwa Complex, Opp.Friend Bakery, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh.Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Mrs.Sujan Sandhu Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Opposite parties No.3 & 4 in person.
Opposite parties No.1 & 2 exparte.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that complainant purchased Gionee E-7 mobile phone IMEI No.862583026312829 from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 6.11.2014 for a sum of Rs.34,000/-. Complainant submitted that on the advise of OP No.1 complainant got the mobile phone insured from OP No.2 vide insurance cover note for the period from 5.11.2014 to 4.11.2015 covering theft, accidental damage, liquid and physical damage, etc for one year. The said mobile set was broken in an accident and complainant deposited the broken mobile set with OP No.1 but the OP No.1 did not issue any receipt and assured that complainant would get amount from the OPs but the OPs neither replaced the mobile set of the complainant nor refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant under insurance. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay the price amount of the mobile set Rs.34,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OPs No.3 and 4 appeared through Sh.Akash Batra, Authorized Representative and filed written reply pleading that as per the version of the complainant himself, he purchased the mobile set in question from OP No.1 and got the same insured from OP No.2. So, it is the OP No.2 who is responsible to give the claim for breakage of the said mobile set. As such, OPs No.3 & 4 service center are not responsible to give any kind of claim for breakage of the mobile set.
3. Notice of this complaint was given to the OPs No.1 & 2 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such they were proceeded against exparte.
4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, authorized representative of the OPs No.3 & 4 tendered affidavit Ex.OP/3&4/A and closed evidence.
6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Gionee E-7 mobile phone with IMEI No.862583026312829 from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 6.11.2014 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.34,000/-. Complainant submitted that on the advise of OP No.1 complainant got the mobile phone insured from OP No.2 vide insurance cover note Ex.C2 for the period from 5.11.2014 to 4.11.2015 covering theft, accidental damage, liquid and physical damage, etc for one year. The said mobile set was broken in an accident and complainant deposited the broken mobile set with OP No.1 but the OP No.1 did not issue any receipt and assured that complainant would get amount from the OPs but the OPs neither replaced the mobile set of the complainant nor refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant under insurance. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of the OPs No.3 & 4 is that as per the version of the complainant himself, he purchased the mobile set in question from OP No.1 and got the same insured from OP No.2. So, it is the OP No.2 who is responsible to give the claim for breakage of the said mobile set. As such, OPs No.3 & 4 service center are not responsible to give any kind of claim for breakage of the mobile set. OPs No.3 & 4 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No.3 & 4 qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased Gionee E-7 mobile phone from OP No.1 vide invoice No.746 dated 6.11.2014. IMEI number of the said mobile phone was 862583026312829 as is evident from the invoice Ex.C1 dated 6.11.2014 produced by the complainant himself. Complainant submitted that he got the said mobile phone insured from OP No.2 vide insurance cover note dated 5.11.2014 plan ID No.42055, copy of which is Ex.C2 for period of one year covering accidental damage, theft, etc. From the perusal of this insurance cover note allegedly issued by OP NO.2 M/s Royal Green Service Pvt Ltd., it is clear that one mobile of Intex bearing IMEI No.911338550117644 was got insured by one Kulbushan from OP No.2 for period of one year and not the mobile phone of the complainant which is subject matter in question in the present case. The complainant himself has admitted that the said mobile phone was broken in an accident. As such, the broken mobile phone is not covered under warranty. As such, the manufacturer of the mobile phone in question are not liable under the warranty. Only insurance company if the mobile set is insured, is liable to pay the claim of the complainant. But in this case, complainant could not produce any insurance cover note or any insurance policy issued by OP No.2 regarding the mobile in question of the complainant. Insurance cover note produced by the complainant Ex.C2 does not cover the mobile set of the complainant. Rather it is insurance cover note of Intex mobile phone having IMEI No.911338550117644. Whereas, the mobile phone in question of the complainant is Gionee E-7 with IMEI No.862583026312829. So, it stands fully proved on record that complainant could not produce any insurance cover note or policy vide which the mobile set of the complainant i.e. Gionee E-7 was insured by the OP No.2. So, both the manufacturer as well as insurer of the mobile set in question of the complainant are not liable to compensate the complainant.
10. Consequently, we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
09.06.2016 Member President
