Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/772/2017

Vikrant Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Harsh Nagra

09 Sep 2019

ORDER

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

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/772/2017
Date of Institution	:	03/11/2017
Date of Decision	:	09/09/2019

 

Vikrant Goyal son of P.L. Goyal, Resident of H.No.2119, Sector 21, Panchkula.

                                                                                                      ....Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.       M/s Syska Gadget Secure, Main Head Office: Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd., 4^th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No.80, S.No.232, New Airport Road, Near Symbiosis College, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra – 411014, through its Authorized Person.

 

2.       Authorized Person of M/s Syska Gadget Secure, Main Head Office: Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd., 4^th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No.80, S.No.232, New Airport Road, Near Symbiosis College, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra – 411014.

 

3.       M/s Syska Gadget Secure & Syska Led Lights Pvt. Ltd., SCO 109, 1^st Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh, through its representative.

 …… Opposite Parties

 

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

                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Harsh Nagra, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Madan Singh Dasila, Counsel for Opposite Parties (Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 already ex-parte).

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Vikrant Goyal, the Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Syska Gadget Secure and Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he purchased one Samsung S7 Edge mobile handset for Rs.42,900/- vide invoice dated 30.07.2016 (Annexure C-1) from M/s Savex Technologies Pvt. Limited and got the same insured with the Opposite Parties on 06.08.2016 for all damages by paying Rs.2399/- as premium. On 06.01.2017, the phone accidentally fell down on floor and its back glass and screen got broken in the said incident. Immediately, a claim was lodged, but the same rejected erroneously by the Opposite Parties. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant has preferred the present Complaint.     
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.
4.         Later on, Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 (Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 already ex-parte) and he was allowed to join in subsequent proceedings.
5.         Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 (Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 already ex-parte) filed their joint reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant did not complete/fulfill the basic requirements for processing the claim. As per terms & conditions of the insurance policy (Annexure OP-1/A) after submitting all documents, the damaged mobile handset would be checked by the Authorized Service Centre and all the documents would be uploaded on portal along with repair estimate for insurance approval. The Complainant failed to submit the repair estimate from the Authorized Service Centre of Samsung and did not submit repair estimate and he just wanted to get the false claim of his damaged mobile from Opposite Party intentionally and violated the terms & conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the claim of the Complainant was rightly rejected by the answering Opposite Party. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments filed on behalf of Opposite Parties and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the parties.
8.         A perusal of Insurance Contract for new Mobile Phones/Tables (Annexure OP-1), available at Pg. No.20 of the paper-book, shows in the column of ‘interest’ that it includes insurance to new Mobile Phones/Tablets on physical loss or damage due to Accidental Damage. The definition of accidental damage is pretty uniform across insurance policies; damage that occurs suddenly as a result of an unexpected and non-deliberate external action. In layman’s terms, that usually means an unintentional one-off incident that harms your property or its contents. Hence, we are of the concerted view that the mobile handset in question is very well covered under the insurance policy issued by the Opposite Parties.
9.         It is a fact that the mobile handset was used for more than six months at the time of accident, therefore, 50% of the invoice amount needs to be deducted as depreciation which comes to Rs.21,450/- as the claim of the mobile was lodged after six  months of its purchase. Even otherwise, it is the case of the Opposite Parties that their liability is limited to the extent of only 50% amount of invoice price per depreciation clause contained in the Insurance Contract for new Mobile Phones/Tables (Pg. No.36 of the paper-book). In these set of circumstances, rejecting the claim of the Complainant in whole is not justified. 
10.         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 offered to settle the claim of the Complainant promptly, 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.
11.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed:-

[a]   To pay Rs.21,450/- being 50% of the invoice price of the mobile handset to the Complainant;

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

[c]   To also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

12.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]. 
13.         The Complainant shall return the Mobile handset in question to the Opposite Parties after the compliance of the order.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced                                     

09^th Sept. 2019

                                 Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”