Delhi

North East

CC/216/2017

Ms. Akansha Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

24 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 216/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Ms. Akansha Jain D/o Sh. L.K. Jain C-7/209, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053.	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	M/s Sai Communication Through its Prop./Partner B-1/235, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053.   M/s Syska Gadget Secure Through its Managing Director/CEO 4th Floor, Saphire Plaza, Plot No. 80, Survey o.232, Near Symbiosis College, Viman Nagar, Pune- 411012.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

05.07.2017 16.04.2018 24.04.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

 

 

 

 

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile make S7 Edge Samsung from Digital Café, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi on 19.01.2017 for a sum of Rs. 56,900/- vide invoice No. WD/024326/2016-17 by cash. The above mobile set was got insured by complainant from OP1 of the insurance services of OP2 vide Kit no. 744952292 for a sum of Rs. 2,399/- for a period of one year starting from 19.01.2017. It has been further submitted by complainant that the OP1 had assured her that for one year, the above mobile is fully insured from any physical damage, liquid damage, theft / snatching, data loss, viruses and in case of any incident, the complainant will get full value of the mobile and thereafter the protection was installed in the mobile set of the complainant. It has been submitted by the complainant that unfortunately on 21.06.2017 the above mobile was damaged and as such a complaint was lodged with customer care  of  OP2 but just after two hours, the OP2 had rejected her claim and sent a SMS at 04:10 PM stating ‘claim does not meet eligibility criteria as per terms and conditions’. Thereafter the complainant contacted OP2 several times but he flatly refused to hear the complainant without giving any reason of rejecting the claim. Thereafter, the complainant contacted OP1 but she was asked to communicate with OP2 on telephone but the representative of OP2 refused to entertain the complaint of the complainant despite the complainant having taken the insurance policy for one year from OP2. Further the complainant requested OP2 to refund the cost of the mobile but no one heard the request of the complainant and as such the complainant had to purchase another mobile for her own use and complainant wants only refund of the cost of her mobile. A reference has been invited by the complainant to the guidelines of Hon’ble National commission that the traders are jointly liable for the defect of the goods. In the present case, the complainant had purchased the mobile set as well as insurance from OP1 and as such if any claim arises, both the OPs are liable to pay the cost of the mobile to the complainant. Since the OPs have refused to refund the cost of the mobile, this is unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Keeping in view the above, complainant has prayed that the OPs are liable to refund the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs. 56,900/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of its purchase till realization, in addition to Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony meted out to the complainant and Rs. 15,500/- towards litigation expenses and follow-up of this complaint.

The complainant has attached a copy of retail tax invoice No. WD/024326/2016-17 dated 19^th January 2017 from Wizard Digitek Computers Pvt Ltd for an amount of Rs. 56,900/- towards the purchase of the Samsung S7 EDGE 128GB (G935FD), copy of receipt of Rs. 2,399/- for Syska Gadget Secure on 19.01.2017 signed by Sai Communication, copy of insurance cover issued by Syska Gadget Secure bearing No. 74952292 for a sum of Rs. 2,399/- wherein comprehensive Gadget Cover, Physical / Fluid Damage, Fire and Allied Perils, Virus Protection and Theft Protection are mentioned as cover for devices, copy of SMS dated 21^st June 2017 from OP2 wherein it is mentioned that the claim no. 91706219313 does not meet eligibility criteria as per terms and conditions and the complainant is free to contact at help line No. 02030402500.

2. Notice was issued to OPs on 31.07.2017 for appearance on 22.08.2017 but only OP1 appeared and filed its Vakalatnama and collected the copy of complaint alongwith annexures but did not appear afterwards and as such both the OPs were proceeded ex-parte.
3. Ex- parte evidence filed by the complainant wherein she reiterated her case made out in her complaint and requested before this Forum that since the OPs have rendered deficient service to the complainant due to the callous and negligent attitude and unfair trade practice, the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant for harassment, tension and mental agony by paying the cost of the present complaint. The complainant had moved application for deletion of OP2 from Memo of Parties as no specific relief was prayed for against it and accordingly OP2 was deleted vide order dated 23.01.2018.
4. Written arguments was filed by the complainant.
5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and also gone through the documentary evidence submitted by the complainant in support of her contentions. The complainant argued that OP1 did not registered the insurance with OP2 within a specific time frame which is why OP2 did not give any claim to the complainant against screen break of her mobile phone as informed by OP2.

We are of the considered view that in the absence of any rebuttal on the part of OPs since they never appeared or put forth their defence/ explanation, the complainant has succeeded in establishing the deficiency in service on the part of OP1 was duty bound towards the complainant to repair the same however as the mobile set was not repaired despite insurance by OP2 despite the mobile set going out of order within the insured period, there is clear deficiency on the part of OP1 qua the complainant. Accordingly, we direct the OP1 to refund the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs. 56,900/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization to the complainant. We also award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant payable by OP1 as compensation for mental harassment and agony inclusive of litigation charges. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on 24.04.2018 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member