Haryana

Ambala

CC/84/2017

Himanshu Seth - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s V.K. Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

23 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.          : 84 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution          : 17.03.2017

                                                          Date of decision     :  23.04.2018

 

 

Himanshu Seth son of Sh. Sanjeev  Seth, resident of House No.7313/4, BanS Market, Near Pammi Chowk, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       M/s V.K.Electronics, 10375/6, Chowk Kotwali Bazar, Ambala City through its prop.

2.       Samsung India Pvt. Ltd Branch office SCO 4-5, Ist Floor, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh, through its authorized signatory.

3.       Apps Daily, Sadar Bazar, Near S.D.School, Ambala Canttt thorugh its authorized  signatory.

IInd address: Apps Daily Solutions Pvt Ltd. Krishna Complex, Ist, Floor, Sector-31, Noida, Pincode-201310.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender  Kumar, Member.               

                   Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

 

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

Op No. 1 proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 03.05.2017

Op No. 3 proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 13.12.2017.

Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for OP No.2.

.

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile S.No. *352944/018255/6*352945/08/018255/3* Model no.A910FZDDINS from OP No.1 vide invoice no.6499 dated 17.10.2016 for a total sum of Rs. 32500/-. The said mobile is Samsung company and belongs to the OP No.2.  At the time of purchasing  the said mobile the complainant  insured  it with the OP No.3 and in this regard also paid an amount of Rs. 3000/-. The Ops received Rs. 3000/- i.e. 6% of the total cost of the mobile but as per policy the same is 5% of the total cost of the mobile. On 28.11.2016 the said mobile phone is damage and on advised of the Op No.1, the complainant approached  the OP Nos. 2 & 3  in this regard and on 02.12.2016 the complainant handed over the  said mobile to th e OP No.3  and OP No.3 also received a sum of Rs.1950/- in this regard form the complainant  and issued a job sheet.  At the time of receiving the said mobile the Ops assured  him that the mobile will be repair or replace within 21 days . After lapse of the 21 days, the complainant approached the Ops so many time, but all that time the Ops always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. The Ops have failed to provide proper service to the complainant. There is clear cut deficiency in service of the Ops. Hence, the present  complaint. 

2.                Registered notices issued to Op Nos.1 &3 but none have turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 03.05.2017 & 13.12.2017 respectively.  Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that as the case of the complainant is only against the insurance company. It has been admitted by the complainant that the unit in question was damaged due to mishandling on the part of the complainant thus it is the insurance company who is to repair the said unit. It is submitted that on the account of damage, warranty in respect of the unit has become void. It is further submitted that the said unit was brought to the service center  of the OP on 14.12.2016 vide complaint no. 4227273627 and issues  in the display of the unit were reported. The engineers of the OP thoroughly checked the unit and found that unit was damaged i.e. broken down due to mishandling on the part of complainant. The officials of service centre informed the complainant that warranty of the unit is barred due to physical damage and repair of unit would be done on chargeable basis only. However, the estimate of repair was not approved and the unit was taken back by the complainant without repair due to non-approval of estimate. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.               To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A with documents as annexure C-1 to C-5 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A alongwith Annexure R-1 to R-5 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and carefully gone through the case file. It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased Samsung Mobile Model No.A910FZDDING  for Rs. 32500/- from OP No.1 vide invoice No. 6499 dated 17.10.2016 vide (Annexure C-1) along with the Insurance of the above said mobile after paying the Rs.3,000/- charge of Insurance extra for insurance cover for one year in any type of damage. Perusal of the job sheet Annexure C-2 reveals that the mobile set physical damaged within its warranty period and same has been deposited by the complainant with the OP No.3. The mobile phone has not been returned in working condition by him to the complainant till date inspite of various visits by complainant.

On the other hand, counsels for OP No.2 has argued that the OP No.2  (i.e  OP No.2 is  Manufacturing Company) has been un-unnecessarily impleaded as party in the above noted complaint, otherwise the OP No.2 has  no role to play as OP No.2 Manufacturing Company had sold the alleged mobile set in a sealed packet and they have no concern with the Insurance company. Perusal of the file, it is clear that the complainant has insured his mobile with OP No.3 in para No.3 of the complaint by paying the amount of Rs.3,000/- for one year in any type of damage. As per the averments of the complainant that the mobile in question was handed over to the OP No.3 for repair/replacement purpose. This above said averments has not been also controverted by the OP No.3. In the present case OPs No.1 & 3 have also proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant.

5.                Keeping in view the above discussion, it is clear that the OP No.3 has not returned the mobile in question to the complainant in working condition. Therefore, OP No.3 is deficient in providing proper service to the complainant. Since, the complainant had obtained insurance policy for mobile in question from OP No.3 by paying a sum of Rs.3,000/- for covering the risk qua physical damage etc. Hence, the present complaint is hereby is allowed against OP No. with costs and same is hereby dismissed against OP Nos. 1  & 2. Op No.3 is directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To refund the costs of Rs.32,500/- as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.

(ii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

 

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 23.04.2018

 

                  

         

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)     (ANAMIKA GUPTA)   (D.N.ARORA)

   Member                                   Member