Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/303/2017

Balwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Syska Gadget Secure - Opp.Party(s)

N.S. Jagdeva

07 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/303/2017
Date of Institution	:	07/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	07/06/2018

 

Balwinder Kaur wife of Aneel Singh Bhambra, resident of H.No.459, Phase-IV, Mohali, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

....Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1]       M/s SYSKA Gadget Secure, through its Manager, SCO No.109, 1^st Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

2]       Gift & Greetings, through its Proprietor SCO No.80-82, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.N.S. Jagdeva, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Madan Singh Dasila, Counsel for OP No.1.
	;	OP No.2 ex-parte.

                       

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Mrs. Balwinder Kaur, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Syska Gadget Secure and Anr. (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that she had purchased one Samsung S7 Galaxy Edge mobile handset from Opposite Party No.2 vide invoice dated 4.5.2016 for Rs.56,900/- and simultaneously got the said mobile handset insured for one year from Opposite Party No.1 vide insurance dated 4.5.2016 (Annexure C-2) against the risk of accidental damage, water and fluid damage, theft, burglary and fire damage. Unfortunately, on 15.3.2017, the subject mobile handset was damaged accidentally by falling down from the hand of the Complainant while she was coming down from the stairs. A claim was lodged with the Opposite Party No.1 vide claim form Annexure C-3, but when nothing was done, an e-mail dated 22.3.2017 was sent by the Complainant for settling her claim. However, the Opposite Party No.1 wrongly repudiated her claim without any rhyme and reasons vide letter dated 22.3.2017 (Annexure C-4A). Hence, alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant have preferred the present Complaint.     
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 contested the Complaint and filed its reply, inter alia, pleading that the Complainant had not informed the answering Opposite Party timely and also did not submit her damaged mobile handset with the authorized repairer within time as mentioned in the terms & conditions of the insurance policy and thus violated the terms & conditions of the Policy. The claim of the Complainant has thus rightly been rejected by the answering Opposite Party. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
5.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and counter affidavits.  
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the contesting parties.
7.         Significantly, the Opposite Party No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
8.         A perusal of e-mail dated 22.03.2017 placed at Annexure C-4 & C-4A by the Complainant shows that her claim was rejected by the Opposite Party No.1 on the ground that “No external force involved during incident. Hence, rejected”. The Complainant in her Complaint has specifically stated in Para No.5 that she was coming down from the stairs and the phone was in her right hand suddenly she fell down on the stairs and the phone also fell from her hand and hit against floor due to impact front screen and back cover was broken. The complainant has also filed her duly sworn affidavit in support of the same.  Hence, the plea of the Opposite Party No.1 while rejecting the claim of the Complainant is bereft of any force and thus, cannot be accepted at its face value.  It is thus established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Parties have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as they ought to have indemnify the loss to the Complainant, which they failed to do and propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. At any rate, the Opposite Parties even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time and again. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Parties. As the handset was used by the Complainant for around 11 months, therefore, we deem it appropriate to deduct 50% of the invoice amount towards depreciation as per the Syska Gadget Insurance placed on record by the Opposite Party No.1, according to which in case of total loss, 50% depreciation value will be deducted from the total eligible value of the handset.
9.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly & severally, directed:-

[a]    To pay Rs.28,450/- (after deducting 50% of the invoice price towards depreciation) to the Complainant;

 [b]   To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]    To also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

10.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of rejection of the claim i.e. 22.03.2017, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]. 
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced                                       

07.06.2018

                                 Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”