BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.273 of 2016
Date of Institution: 6.10.2016
Date of Decision: 28.09.2017
Shikha Sharma aged about 25 years daughter of Shri R.N. Sharma, resident of 11/699, New Shakti Nagar Road, Aggarsain Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Shree Satyam Mobiles, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, through its Proprietor/owner.
2. Appsdaily Solution Pvt. Ltd. Registered office, D-3137, Oberoi Garden Estates, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400072, through its M.D/ Authorized person/ Director.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT………………… MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ajay Saini, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that complainant purchased a new mobile Panasonic P55 Novo from opposite party no.1 vide bill/ cash memo No.95646 dated 10.2.2016 for a sum of Rs.9000/-. At that time, the op no.1 being the agent of op no.2 allured the complainant to get insured mobile set from op no.2 and stated that op no.2 provides full services and also assured that in case of theft or total damage, the company will refund the total bill amount after receiving the deductable amount of Rs.500/- and also assured that in case of other major damages the company will make the payment or get replaced the set with new one and also shown some other feature of op no.2. Accordingly, the complainant agreed to purchase the gazette namely Appsdaily Platinum 10K from op no.1 and op no.1 after charging the amount of Rs.799/- as premium against the policy/ certificate No.Platinum-10K-6816569 and op no.1 also endorsed the same on the invoice No.95646 dated 10.2.2016 accordingly. As per policy of the company, the Apps features validity was lifetime on one handset and protection services were valid for one year from the date of purchase. That on 21.8.2016 around 6.00 p.m. when the complainant was crossing from Sadar Bazar, Sirsa and was returning to her home on her scooty, in the meantime all of a sudden a stray cow came in front of the scooty of complainant and she applied brakes and the scooty slipped. The complainant fell down and mobile set in question also fell down on the road and a vehicle coming from the behind crossed over the mobile set on account of which the mobile set damaged badly. That immediately thereafter the complainant intimated about the incident as well as about the damages caused to the mobile to op no.1 and thereafter also intimated op no.2 vide intimation dated 1.9.2016 which has been duly received by op no.2 alongwith Rs.500/- i.e. deductable amount from complainant. It is further averred that it was asked to complainant that a verification call shall be made to the complainant within a short period which is a part of the formalities. It was further promised that after the fulfillment of the requisite formalities of this process, the said mobile shall be replaced with fresh one at the cost of op no.2. That thereafter complainant received a telephonic call from the side of op no.2 through which the necessary verification information was collected from complainant and also got filled up some papers as well as copy of invoice, ID, bank particulars and other requisite documents from complainant. That on 16.9.2016 complainant was surprised and stunned to receive email from op no.2 through which op no.2 repudiated the claim of complainant without any cogent reason or excuse and without any explanation. That the complainant kept on making regular efforts for the replacement of her damaged mobile with fresh one or refund of price of the mobile by making number of telephonic calls to ops no.1 and 2 but to no effect. As per the insurance agreement, the liability of replacing the mobile with fresh one was upon the op no.2 without charging any cost from complainant but complainant had paid Rs.500/- for the replacement of the mobile or refund of the amount as per their demand inspte of the fact that mobile of complainant was well within period of insurance and all the risks were covered under the insurance policy. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement denying all the contents of the complaint and it is submitted that complainant never approached to op no.1 and if the complainant would have approached to answering op then the answering op would have tried his best to redress the grievance of complainant, if any through proper channel.
3. Opposite party no.2 did not appear despite notice and was proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant produced her affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of discharge voucher of Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd. dated 18.7.2016 filled from complainant Ex.C3, copy of job sheet dated 1.9.2016 Ex.C4 and copy of document of appsdaily Ex.C5 and copy of email dated 16.9.2016 Ex.C6. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit Ex.R1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. It is proved on record that complainant purchased the mobile in question from the opposite party no.1 on 10.2.2016 for a sum of Rs.9000/- against bill No.95646 dated 10.2.2016. The version of the complainant that at the instance of op no.1 she got insured her mobile with op no.2 against the premium of Rs.799/- is also proved from the bill Ex.C2 itself as on the bill of op no.1 there is mention of Platinum-10K 6816569. From the document of appsdaily Ex.C5 it is evident that op no.2 provides protection against physical damage, liquid damage, theft, data-loss and viruses for handset upto Rs.10,000/- against the premium of Rs.799/-. It is also proved on record that mobile in question of the complainant was damaged and op no.2 got filled discharge voucher from the complainant copy of which is placed on file as Ex.C3. The op no.2 also received the mobile in question from complainant and also received an amount of Rs.500/- from the complainant on account of settlement of claim but returned the mobile in question without any repair vide Ex.C6 on the ground that damage incident description is different from actual damage found in the handset. But however, the opposite party no.2 has not substantiated its plea of email rather op no.2 has opted to be proceeded against exparte and therefore we found no substance in it. The complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the ops.
7. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to repair the mobile in question of the complainant as per terms and conditions of document Ex.C5 and to make it defect free within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and subject to production of mobile by the complainant who is also directed to handover the mobile in question to op no.1 within seven days from today against proper receipt. In case the mobile in question is not repairable being totally damaged, then the opposite parties will refund an amount of Rs.8000/- to the complainant after deduction of depreciation of Rs.1000/- from the cost of the mobile in question i.e. Rs.9000/- within further period of one month, failing which the ops shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.8000/- from the date of order till actual payment. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation including litigation expenses. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:28.9.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
