Haryana

Kurukshetra

112/2017

Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Munjal Moobie - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Shahran

21 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.112 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 06.06.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:21.03.2018.

Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Ramji Lal, resident of H.No.908/12, Azad Nagar, Thanesar, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Munjal’s Mobile Mart, Mohan Nagar, Aggarsain Chowk, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra, through its Prop.
2. App. Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ist Floor Hariya Dream Park, CHS, OFF; Mira Bhayandar Road, near D-Mart Mira Road, East, Mumbai-400 598 through its Director.

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.   

Present:     Sh. Rahul Saharan, Advocate, for complainant.   

                OPs exparte.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Vinod Kumar against Munjal’s Mobile Mart and another, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set of Samsung Galaxy SM-531 bearing IMEI No.355261073303355 for a sum of Rs.8990/- from the Op No.1 vide bill No.1494 dt. 18.03.2016.  It is alleged that the complainant also insured the said mobile set from the Op No.2 through Op No.1 and paid Rs.799/- for the said insurance vide bill No.1495.  It is further alleged that the complainant was working in Fire Brigade Department as Fireman, near New Bus Stand, Kurukshetra and on 06.03.2017, the fire broke out in the gali of Ankur Nursing Home in a house and the complainant was on Fire Brigade while extinguishing the fire and in that process, the mobile set of complainant was totally damaged.  It is further alleged that the complainant made a complaint bearing No.CIN AND C 0603171978865463 regarding the same to the Op No.2 through online on 06.03.2017 but the Op No.2 did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the mobile set with the new one or to pay Rs.8990/- to the complainant alngwith interest and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony or any other relief which this Forum may deems fit. 

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed  exparte vide order dt. 20.07.2017.  The Op No.2 also proceeded exparte vide order dt. 21.03.2018.  The complainant produced on record the affidavit, photo-stat copy of cash memo and receipt regarding the payment of Rs.799/- to Op No.2.

4.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully and minutely.

5.             It is on record that the complainant got the mobile set insured from Op No.2 for the amount of Rs.799/-.  However, the Op No.2 has failed to explain the circumstances in this regard. 

                So, in these circumstances, the complaint of complainant stands allowed and Op No.2 is directed to pay the insurance amount of Rs.8990/- to the complainant.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.2.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:21.03.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member