Order-7.
Date-15/09/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case, in short, is that OP1 is involved in business of selling of different insurance products, insuring brand new mobile handset purchased by retail consumes against Mobile Theft, Physical Damage and Liquid Damage. OP2 is a superstore of smart phones. The complainant had purchased a mobile handset of make Microsoft Lumia 540 Dual SIM from OP2 on 31-10-2015 from OP2. In the same premises of OP2 a representative of OP1 approached the complainant and advised him to insure the brand new handset under “Apps You Need” product so that in case of any theft, physical damage and liquid damage etc. the complainant can get the cost of the mobile handset insured. The complainant, thereafter, immediately insured the mobile handset on payment vide Bill No.AM/DOCM/1509 dated 03-10-2015 under OP1 at the same premises of OP2. It is stated that the complainant’s aforesaid new and insured mobile was stolen on 16-02-2016. The complainant also lodged a written complaint with Golabari P.s. ad a case was registered u/s.379 I.P.C. vide Case No.176 of 2016 dated 16-02-2016. The complainant, thereafter, advanced a claim for reimbursement of the cost of the mobile by submitting all documents as demanded and instructed by one Mr. Atanu, representative of OP1 at the same premises of OP2. The complainant, thereafter, was advised to wait for at least 90 days for processing the claim but even after lapse of 90 days and having no status at his disposal, the complainant wrote an email to OP1 dated 10-06-2016 but in vain. OP1 did not honour the legitimate claim of the complainant. The complainant also served three legal notices to OP1 but the envelopes returned with remarks of postal department as ‘left’. The complainant also personally went to the office of the OP1 for service of the legal notices but OP1 did not accept the same. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against both the OPs. Hence, this case.
Despite service of summons none came from the side of the OPs to contest the case and the case has proceeded ex parte against the OPs.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering services to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We take both the points together for brevity of discussion and convenience.
Complainant has filed some documents to establish his case i.e. the Xerox copy of sales invoice cum challan dated 03-10-2015, showing “Apps You Need P and D”, Xerox copy of formal FIR, Xerox copy of emails on different dates, Xerox copy of legal notice and other documents on record.
It appears that the complainant purchased a mobile hand set of Micromax Lumia 540 Dual SIM from M/s. A.M. Mobile Telecom, OP2 on 03-10-2015. The complainant was approached by OP1 to insure the newly purchased mobile as mentioned above. The complainant also insured the same vide bill No.AM/BOCN/1509 Dated 03-10-2015 for an amount of Rs.599-00 at the same time under OP1. From the original as well as formal FIR it appears that the said mobile set of the complainant was stolen on 16-02-2016. The complainant lodged FIR immediately u/s.379 of IPC. Te complainant, thereafter, advanced his claim of insurance vide CIN T4248501040 and submitted all documents with OP1. It appears that the insurance was sold by OP1, however, the bill was generated by Op2. The complainant waited for more than 90 days for processing the claim as stated by OP1 but thereafter complainant was disappointed as he received no response from either of the OPs. We find that the claim of the complainant was not satisfied. The complainant thereafter tried to serve legal notices upon the OP1. OP1 refused to accept the legal notices. We find that the complainant insured his mobile with OP1 in case of theft, physically damage, liquid damage etc. against payment of premium. There is no denying of the fact that the insured mobile was stolen on 16-02-2016. Accordingly, we think that the complainant is entitled to get the reimbursement as against the insured mobile.
None came from the side of either of the OPs to contest the case or to controvert the version of the complainant. The Evidence on Affidavit filed by the complainant remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. We think that OPs have demonstrated a gesture of unfair trade as well as deficiency in service. OP1 is the seller of different insurance products. OP2 holds the office in the same premises of OP1 and the complainant purchased the mobile phone from OP2,, the insurance product was sold by OP1, however, the bill was generated by OP2. We think that there is collusive relation in between the OPs 1 and 2.
Be that as it may, in absence of any contrary and controverting materials on record and having regard to the documents thereon we think that the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. We also think that OPs have also indulged in unfair trade as they evaded the claim of the complainant all the time who is a consumer, purchaser as well as insured.
Consequently the case merits success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs.
OPs are jointly and severally directed to reimburse amount of Rs.10,450/- towards cost of the handset apart from litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
OPs1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the Forum for indulging in unfair trade practice.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution under appropriate provision in C.P. Act.
