BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 270 of 2017                                                                        

                                                        Date of Institution         :    23.10.2017

                                                          Date of Decision   :    29.1.2018.

Satnam Gori son of Shri Gori Shanker, resident of behind Woman Polytechnic College, Rania Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1 M/s Wadhwa Mobile Care, through its Prop/Incharge, Near Jaipur Hospital, Circular Road, Sirsa.

2 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada Pune-411006 through its Authorized Officer/responsible person.

3 Bajaj Finance Co. Limited, through its Authorized person, office Dabwali Road, Sirsa.

...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

     SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh. G.K. Sharma,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite parties exparte.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant had purchased a mobile set make Samsung GALAXY J7 bearing IMEI No.352335085877557 & 352336085877555 from the op no.1, against the cash amount of Rs.16900/- vide invoice no.61429 dated 27.12.2016 and the op no.1 at the time of delivery of the said mobile set had given the guarantee/warrantee of one year against all type of manufacturing defect therein the mobile set. The said mobile was got financed by the complainant from the op no.3. It is also submitted that the ops no.1 & 3 of their own allured the complainant for the Insurance of the mobile set as the mobile set purchased by the complainant is very costly and the complainant under the allurement of the op no.1 agreed to the proposal of the op no.1 and as such the op no.1 of his own managed the Insurance plan launched by the op no.2 and accordingly the complainant purchased the insurance plan against the said mobile vide Insurance Policy No.OG-17-1155-9931-00005760 for the period 27.12.2016 to 26.12.2017. The validity of the insurance plan was for the period of one year from the date of registration. The said policy was issued by the op no.2 on dated 9.1.2017. It is also submitted that the ops have also assured for the compensation to the complainant in case of any kind of damage to the said mobile set and there is specifically laid down in the policy covering all kind of risk in the mobile set. The op no.1 also assured the complainant for the liability of the manufacturing company in case of any kind of deficiency on the part of the op no.2 on happening of any kind of damage to the mobile set and also assured that if the op no.2 failed to redress the grievance of the complainant, then the manufacturing company will be liable for the same. Thereafter, during the subsisting period of insurance plan the mobile set of the complainant has suffered damages as the display of the mobile set gone out of order due to incident of mobile set fallen into the water hence the complainant accordingly lodged the complaint with the ops immediately after the incident happened and acting on the complaint of the complainant, the op no.2 made the correspondence with the complainant and required the documents from the complainant, vide claim no.2010071349 and on every correspondence the ops assured that the claim of compensation would be disbursed to the complainant very soon and the ops fully assured the complainant for the payment of the insured sum of the damged set as the mobile set suffered the damages within the guarantee period. Now after lingering on the grievance of the complainant for a long time, the ops did not file any reply and now when the complainant raised protest with the op no.1 then the op no.1 & 2 in collusion with each other repudiated the claim of the complainant. the ops have not only avoided their legal liability, but the ops have knowingly caused the unnecessary harassment and humiliation to the complainant, hence the complainant besides the insured sum of Rs.16900/- is also entitled the compensation of Rs.50,000/-because the ops only out of their malafide intention caused the unnecessary harassment, humiliation to the complainant. The complainant is businessman by profession and he had purchased the mobile set for the communication with his clients and daily needs, but due to negligence and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the ops, the complainant suffered disturbance and as such undergone financial loss on this counts, hence the complainant besides the compensation of the damaged mobile set is also entitled for the compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- for pecuniary loss caused to the complainant by the ops. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the ops through his counsel Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, Sirsa which notice was sent through registered post which must have been received by the ops but the ops inspite of notice failed to redress the grievance of the complainant hence the complainant has left with no other option but to file the present complaint. Hence, this complaint.

2.                The perusal of the record reveals that the notice to the op no.1 and 3 was issued 2.11.2017 but did not put their appearance and were proceeded against exparte. Op no.3 has refused to receive the summon on 9.11.2017 and was proceeded against exparte. Notice was sent to op no.2 on 29.11.2017 by registered post but they did not put their appearance and as per report of the Assistant dated 5.12.2017 the said notice was not received back. It was presumed since more than 30 days have expired and notice stand delivered to op no.2. As such op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.    

3.                The complainant Satnam Gori produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Sadhu Ram Ex.CW2/A, copy of legal notice Ex.C1, policy shedule Ex.C2, copy of bill Ex.C3, copy of job card Ex.C4, copy of estimate Ex.C5, statement of account Ex.C6, copies of Gmail Ex.C7, Ex.C7A, Ex.C7B to Ex.C13.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the averments of the complaint. He has also furnished the affidavit of Sadhu Ram who has also corroborated the version of the complainant. The complainant also tendered the copies of documents legal notice Ex.C1, policy shedule Ex.C2, copy of bill Ex.C3, copy of job card Ex.C4, copy of estimate Ex.C5, statement of account Ex.C6, copies of Gmail Ex.C7, Ex.C7A, Ex.C7B to Ex.C13. It is proved on record that the complainant had purchased a mobile set make Samsung GALAXY J7 bearing IMEI No.352335085877557 & 352336085877555 from the op no.1, against the cash amount of Rs.16900/- vide invoice no.61429 dated 27.12.2016 and the op no.1 at the time of delivery of the said mobile set given the guarantee/warrantee of one year against all type of manufacturing defect the mobile set and the same was insured with the op no.2. Further it is proved that the mobile of the complainant was damaged due to sudden fall of the mobile set into the water when the complainant was taking bath. The complainant in his affidavit deposed that it was a accidental damage  to the mobile and there is no deliberation act on the part of the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy it was legal obligation of the insurance company to reimbers the loss to get the mobile defect free by carrying out the necessary repairs of the mobile set.  Since the opposite parties did not come forward to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte, as such evidence led by the complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence, the complainant has been able to prove his case.

6.                In view of the above, we allow the present complaint qua opposite parties no.1 to 3 and direct them to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile set of the complainant and to make it defect free even by replacing parts, if any, without costs within 15 days of the production of the mobile set by the complainant. In case it is found by the Engineer of the ops no.1 to 3  that mobile in question is not repairable, the ops no.1 to 3 shall be liable to replace the mobile in question with a new one of same price or in alternate to refund the price of the mobile within further period of 15 days. We also direct the ops no.1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Ops no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open Forum.             Member                         President,

Dated:29.1.2018.                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.