Orissa

Rayagada

CC/216/2016

Shri Shahid Ahmed - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Suraj Mobile Muniguda - Opp.Party(s)

Self

07 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

                                                      C.C. Case  No.216/ 2016.

                                                                       

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                    Member

            Shri Sahid Ahmed, S/o Sri Irshad Ahamed, aged about 22 years, Resident   of Main            Road, Muniguda, Po/Ps Muniguda, Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ……Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Suraj Mobiles, In front of Block Office, Muniguda, Po/Ps Muniguda, Dist. Rayagada, Authorised dealer of Samsung products.
2. Manager, (Sales, Marketing & Customer Care) Samsung(India) Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, First ower, Mohan Co-operatives Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110049.
3. V.B. Insurance  Associates, C/o Apps Daily Solutions(P) Ltd.,6^th Floor, C.Wings, Oberai Garden Estates Chandili Farms Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400072.
4. M/s Srikrishna, Authaorised Service Centre of OP 2,Opposite Andhra Bank, New Colony, Rayagada, Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada.
5. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Bangalore.

 

                                                                                                             ……...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.P 2: Sri K.Ch.Mohapatra & Associate Advocate, Rayagada.

For the Op 5:  Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan,Advocate,Rayagada.

 

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one  Samsung mobile   from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.22,400/- on 04.06.2015 with one year warranty    and the said mobile is insured  with the OP 4 through OP 3. During its warranty  period the mobile set was damaged  due to slip from the hand    and the complainant approached OP 4  for the service  on 28.12.15  and  he checked the same and given report and asked the OP 1 to do the needful  for replacement but as there is an  insurance against  the said   mobile set he advised to claim the insurance  from OP 3 and the OP 3  sent the claim form and asked to submit the same  along with the mobile phone so

 that they will pay the assessed damage of Rs.16,297/-  but the Op 4 wrongly calculated the same as Rs.16,0297/- and in order to clarify the same the original purchase receipt and the mobile set  with its accessories were sent to OP 3 and it was duly acknowledge by it.  The Op 3 & 5  has under taken to indemnify the complainant  the value of the mobile  set during the insured period and the claim is made  within the said warranty period but they have not yet  taken any steps to settle the claim. Hence, prayed to direct the Ops  to make the payment  of the damaged mobile set  i.e. Rs.22,400/-  with monetary compensation of Rs.5,000/- and accost of litigation award such the relief as the forum deem fit and proper. Hence, this complaint.

                         On being noticed, the O.p 2 appeared  through their advocate and filed written version inter  alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. It is submitted by the O.Ps that  the case is not maintainable  and liable to be dismissed.  There is no cause of action to file this case against the O.ps.  It is submitted by the Op 2 that the warranty is not covers for any damage product as per the warranty terms and conditions reflect in the warranty card. The warranty of the product will be void if the product was breakage or damage due to misuse or mishandle of the product. Hence the service will be done by the OP 4 by  replacing the damage/broken  spares of the product if the customer as willing to   pay the cost of the replacing new spares otherwise the OP 4  could  not able to service the damage product of the customer. Rather the insurance personnel the OP 3 & 5 are liable to settle the claim of the complainant.  The complainant has admitted  his mobile was damaged due to slip from his hands for which the OPP 4 has given the estimate  towards replacement of new  spares against the damage spare of the mobile set of the complainant. It is the duty of the complainant to approve and to settle the claim of the said estimate for repair of the aforesaid mobile phone before the OP 3 & 5. After expiry of warranty period  all of sudden the complainant filed this frivolous and vexatious complaint against the  Op  2 & 4 .  From the above facts and circumstance  it is clear that    the Ops  have not committed any act of deficiency of service nor  indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence prayed to  dismiss  the complaint with heavy cost   in favour of the OP 2.

                                                                       FINDINGS

                        Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the mobile set was damaged  due to slip from the hand    and the complainant approached OP 4  for the service  on 28.12.15  and  he checked the same and given report and asked the OP 1 to do the needful  for replacement but as there is an  insurance against  the said   mobile set he advised to claim the insurance  from OP 3 and the OP 3   the assessed damage of Rs.16,297/-  and the complainant has sent the original purchase receipt and the mobile set  with its accessories to OP 3 and it was duly acknowledge by it but they have not yet  taken any steps to settle the claim.

                        On perusal of record it reveals that though the Op 4 appeared through their counsel but failed to file  their written version for which the forum remain in dark regarding the facts of the complaint and proceeded the matter exparte against  the OP 1,3,4 & 5 and believed the allegations of the complainant. Since the mobile in question  is insured  and damaged was occurred during its warranty period  and the complainant has rightly claimed in time before the  OP 3 & 5, it is the responsibility Op 3 & 5 to indemnify the same as per their assessment and pay the insured amount to the complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that he has already sent the money receipt and the mobile set  with its accessories to OP 3 and it was duly acknowledge by it. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allowed the complaint against OP 3 &5  and disposed of the matter with the following directions.

 

                                       

                                                     ORDER

                        The  opposite party No.3 & 5   are directed to pay insurance amount of the mobile set and the Op No.2,3 & 5 are directed to pay  with monetary compensation of Rs.2,000/- and cost of Rs.500/-  to the complainant  within thirty days  from the date of receipt of this order failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay  interest  @  12%  p.a. on the above awarded amount till  the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed. We do not pass any order against Op 1,2 &4.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 24^th    day October,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

            Member                                                                                               President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Copy of sale invoice
2. Copy of report of OP 4
3. Copy of application forwarding the claim form to OP 3
4. Copy of photograph of the mobile phone etc.

By the Opp.Party: Nil

 

                                                                                                           President