Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/586

Karnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nexus Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Jeevan Singh ADv.

22 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          Complaint No:  586 of 11.08.2016.                                                            Date of Decision: 22.12.2016.

 

Karnail Singh son of Sh. Jeet Singh, R/o. H. No.B-1980, 49, Vill. Meonwali, The. and Distt. Ludhiana.

..… Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Nexus Electronics-III, 48-A, Hambran Road, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorised signatory.
2.  Unicom Suraksha, Unicom India Pvt. Ltd., Fountain Chowk, Ist Floor, Near Petrol Pump, Ludhiana, through its Prop/Partner/Authorized persons

…..Opposite parties 

                                      Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Jeevan Singh Rawat, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by complainant by pleading that he purchased one mobile phone of make Samsung J-5 bearing IMEI No.352673078828736 vide invoice No.B-1980 dated 31.12.2015 for sum of Rs.11,431/- from OP1. OP1 induced complainant to get the mobile phone insured with OP2 and after believing that representation,  complainant got mobile phone in question insured from OP2 through OP1. Besides this complainant purchased one more mobile phone along with the insurance policy cover. On 25.04.2015 the above referred mobile sustained damage of display and of the other parts owing to complainant being met with accident. Thereafter complainant approached authorized service centre of Samsung for repair, who took the same and disclosed complainant to visit the said office on 03.05.2016. However, on visit on 03.05.2016 officials of service centre of Samsung disclosed as if mobile of complainant is not insured with any insurance company. Then the complainant did show the bill and documents issued by Ops, on which the officials of Samsung Service Centre disclosed complainant to visit again after 15 days.  On such visit complainant was shocked to hear that mobile of complainant was not insured.  Thereafter mobile phone was taken by complainant from service centre, who called upon complainant to contact OP1. OP1 suggested complainant to approach one Pankaj, office bearer of OP2. On contact to that Pankaj, he assured to get mobile phone repaired, but did not issue any receipt. Said Pankaj further disclosed that complainant should visit after 20 days for getting the mobile back after due repair. Matter continued to be procrastinated. On 13.07.2016, OP2 returned mobile of complainant and thereafter complainant again approached OP1, who issued receipt under his stamp with assurance that phone after repair will be returned within 2-3 days, but despite that the  mobile phone is not repaired till date. OP1 sold the insurance policy to complainant, but the mobile phone not got insured and as such by pleading deficiency in service, prayer made for directing Ops to repair the mobile phone to the satisfaction of the complainant. Even directions sought for providing insurance cover to complainant. Compensation for harassment of Rs.1 Lac along with litigation expenses even claimed.

2.                Ops are exparte in this case.

3.                Complainant in exparte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 and then closed evidence.

4.                Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and record gone through carefully.

5.                Retail invoice Ex. C1 is  there on the record to show that two mobile phones of Samsung Company were purchased by complainant from OP1 on 31.12.2015 for total worth of Rs.22,862.37. Price of per piece of mobile phone mentioned as Rs.11,431.18 in Ex. C1. In Ex. C1 itself it has been mentioned that both the purchased mobiles were insured after receipt of premium of Rs.1084.39 per mobile. After acceptance of such premium of Rs.1084.39 per mobile, OP1 was under obligation to get the mobile phone in question insured, but same has not been done by OP1 as per contents of affidavit Ex. CA of the complainant. After acceptance of premium for insurance of mobile set in question, same was not got insured by OP1 and as such, same amounts to unfair trade practice. In view of this adoption of un fair trade practice by OP1, he is  liable to refund the insurance premium amount and even pay compensation for mental harassment. OP2 is the insurer and as it did not issue any policy and as such, liability of OP2 does not arise at all.   

6.                After going through terms and conditions of insurance plan produced on record, it is made out that insurance policy will not cover the loss arising after 12 months from the date of purchase. Clause 7 of Section 3 of the terms and condition of the policy (as produced on record) may be taken note in this respect. As the shelf life of the mobile in question for the purpose of insurance is one year as per terms and condition of insurance plan and as such, the insurance cover could have been provided up to 31.12.2016 only. That period going to lapse within 7 to 8 days from today onwards and as such, no purpose will be served by issue of direction to Ops to insure the mobile in question. Rather ends of justice will be achieved in case OP1 required to return the received premium of Rs.1084.39 on the mobile set in question.

7.                Contents of affidavit Ex. CA of the complainant are correct that OP1 issued receipt dated 13.07.2016 qua receipt of the mobile set in question in damaged condition on behalf of OP2 because receipt Ex. C2 issued by OP1 in that respect has been produced. Issue of this receipt on behalf of OP2 by OP1 is another act of unfair trade practice because in case the mobile set in question not insured until 13.07.2016, then how OP1 could have received the mobile set in question for and on behalf of insurer i.e. OP2, particularly when no letter of authorization exists in favour of OP1 qua receipt of insurance premium by it for and on behalf of OP2. Rather receipt of mobile phone in question by OP1 on behalf of OP2 through receipt Ex. C2 is an act performed with intent to shift the liability of not getting phone insured, despite receipt of insurance premium through invoice Ex. C1. Such shifting of liability further goads us to burden OP1 with somewhat heavy compensation for harassment of complainant. However, that compensation has to be assessed by keeping in view the price of mobile phone and the other circumstances qua approach by complainant to Ops repeatedly.  As mobile set in question is still with OP1 and same retained with intention of repairing the same and as such, OP1 must repair the said mobile free of costs so that act of providing deficient service by OP1 may be penalized to some extent in this way, also.

8.                As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP1 after due repair of the mobile set in question free of cost will return the same to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further OP1 directed to refund the received premium of Rs.1084.39 along with interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 31.12.2015 till refund of this premium amount. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP1 only. Payment of these amounts be also made within 30 days from the date of copy of the order. However amount of compensation and litigation expenses will not bear any interest. Complaint against OP2 is dismissed being not maintainable for want of cause of action. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                       (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                    (G.K. Dhir)

                                       Member                                            President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:22.12.2016.

Gobind Ram.