BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA
Consumer Complaint No. 266 of 2017
Date of Institution : 17.10.2017
Date of Decision : 24.05.2019
Anil Kumar Grover son of Shri Ram Kishan Grover resident of H.No.7/576, Gali Bhagat Singh Park Wali, Near Shiv Chowk, Sirsa District Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Satyam Mobiles, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa through its Proprietor Amit Gupta.
- B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Shop No.207A, 2nd Floor, Plot # D1,2,3 NDM Mall2, Block D, Netaji Subhash Palace, Wazirpur Delhi-10034 Delhi India Helpline Number 18605003618 Email ID:Apledelhi.3@62X.com.
- Apps daily Solution Pvt.Ltd. Regd. Head Office, D3137-39, Oberoi Garden Estates, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400072.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL……MEMBER.
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Jagwant Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. H.S.Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Deepak Monga, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Complaint against opposite party No.3 dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2019.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that, the complainant purchased a Mobile handset of Apple model 7 128 GB bearing IMEI No.359154076336132 for a sum of Rs.70000/- from opposite party No.1 vide Bill No.4799 on 13.10.2016. The mobile was duly got insured by op no.1 with the opposite party no.3 against the amount of Rs.4999/-. It is further averred that handset worked properly for some time but in the June, 2017 it started giving problems qua incoming, outgoing calls and power related problems. The complainant contacted the Op No.1/dealer but when he failed to redress his grievance then the complainant contacted the service centre on 22.07.2017 and requested either to repair the set or to replace the same with new one but the service centre demanded Rs.27,000/- towards repair charges despite the fact the handset was insured with the company. The complainant completed all the formalities but the ops failed to indemnify the claim of the complainant despite the fact that the mobile was within insured period. The complainant got served legal notice upon the Ops but all in vain as the Op No.2 has given false reply. The service centre cannot claim Rs.27,000/- towards repair charges as in the delivery report the service cost has been shown as zero. The op no.2 mentioned that during checking the device found physically damaged and liquid damaged and the damages are covered under the inclusion clause of the company. The Ops have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply has taken certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.1 is the selling point only who sales the genuine company mobiles on normal profit and issue of warrantee if any arises then the manufacture company tries to solve it by their respective service centers, so the issue of warrantee is not related to op no.1 and there is no role in between the op no.1 and insurance company also. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its separate written statement has also taken certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant visited to op no.2 on 22.7.2017 for the issue/ problem with device not powering on. The customer care executive checked the device and found physical damage and liquid damage due to which the op no.2 told the complainant that this handset is not covered under warrantee due to physical and liquid damage. It is further submitted that op no.2 told the complainant that handset can be replaced/ repaired on chargeable basis due to damage to rear camera glass and liquid found in charging dock which is considered as physical damage and liquid damage as per terms and condition of manufacturing company. It is further submitted that complainant purchased the insurance policy from op no.1 of the apps daily solutions private limited which is op no.3 and op no.2 has no link with op no.1 and op no.3, so op no.2 is not legally bound to provide the services under warrantee if there is a liquid or physical damages and if complainant wants the insurance then he has to register the claim with op no.3 which is insurance company. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
4. The opposite party no.3 could not be served through ordinary process and therefore, op no.3 was ordered to be summoned through publication on the application of complainant but as complainant failed to deposit publication fee despite availing numerous opportunities, the complaint qua opposite party no.3 was dismissed vide orders dated 16.1.2019.
5. The complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of tax invoice Ex.C1, copy of delivery report Ex.C2, copy of insurance document of apps daily Ex.C3, copy of legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C7 and acknowledgment Ex.C8. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A, copy of reply to legal notice Ex.R1, postal receipt Ex.R2 and copies of details of postal authorities Ex.R3 and Ex.R4. Learned counsel for op no.1 suffered a statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.1 be read in evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant has purchased apple mobile on 13.10.2016 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.70,000/- which was manufactured by op no.2 with a warrantee of one year. It is also undisputed fact that complainant also got said mobile insured on payment of Rs.4999/- from op no.3 through op no.1. As per allegations of complainant, the policy had covered the risk of product and further protected the mobile from theft, burglary, liquid and physical damages, accidental damages, dropping, rain damages and split water alongwith a suit of app features to protect the phone and precious data. Further there are allegations of complainant that in the month of June, 2017 there was a complaint in the mobile as all of sudden it started giving problems in incoming and outgoing calls facility and powering off/ power related problem and after checking/ inspection of the mobile, all major parts were found in non working condition. It is an admitted fact on record that on 22.7.2017 the complainant brought this fact in the knowledge of op no.2 which is service centre of apple company and op no.2 checked the mobile and claimed a sum of Rs.27,000/- towards repair charges from the complainant on the ground that mobile is not covered under warrantee as during checking it was found physically damaged and liquid damaged and op no.2 refused to repair the same within warrantee. Further it is proved on record that legal notice was served upon ops, but however, detailed reply was given by op no.2 through counsel, copy of which is Ex.R1. It is mentioned in the job card/ sheet dated 22.7.2017 ExC2 that “device rear camera glass damage and charging dock liquid damage.” So, it appears from the evidence of parties that mobile does not suffer from any manufacturing defect rather problem is found in device rear camera glass which is damaged and charging dock liquid damaged not covered under warrantee, so complaint of complainant does not appear to be maintainable against op no.2 and same is hereby dismissed.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that publication against opposite party no.3 with whom the device was got insured by complainant through op no.1 could not be effected despite passing of order of publication due to non deposit of publication fee and as such the complaint against op no.3 was dismissed vide orders dated 16.1.2019. In so far as, the liability of op no.1 is concerned, the complainant has purchased the mobile from op no.1 on payment of Rs.70,000/- vide sale invoice dated 13.10.2016 Ex.C1 and said mobile was got insured by complainant from op no.3 through op no.1 as op no.1 was working as authorized agent of the manufacturer and also authorized agent of insurance company op no.3, as such it is legal obligation of the op no.1 to get mobile of the complainant repaired as same was duly insured on the date 22.7.2017 when it was found that device rear camera glass damaged and charging dock liquid damaged and same is covered under insurance cover.
9. In view of the above, we allow this complaint qua opposite party no.1 and direct the op no.1 to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile set of the complainant and to make it defect free within 15 days from the date of receipt of mobile without any costs. In case it is found that mobile is not repairable, then op no.1 is directed to get the same replaced with a new one of same make and model after charging depreciation value of the mobile from the complainant, but however op no.1 is at liberty to recover charges of repair/ replacement from the insurance company i.e. op no.3. We also direct the op no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant is at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against op no.1 in case the op no.1 fails to comply with the above said order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 24.05.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
