BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.273/17.
Date of instt.:13.10.2017.
Date of Decision:25.01.2018.
Surinder Singh s/o Shri Niranjan Singh, r/o near Old Water Tank, Siwan, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant. Versus
- OneASsist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 707-708-709, Acme Plaza, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai.
- TVS Electronics Ltd., c/o DHL, 4th Floor, Plot No.193-197 & 254-258, 137 & 248-249, Jigani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bangalore.
……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Shri Ramesh Rana, Adv. for the complainant.
OP No.1 ex parte.
OP No.2 given up.
ORDER
(HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a mobile phone make MI Max Prime Gold 128G IMEI No.863409030148067 from OP No.2 online in the sum of Rs.19,999/- vide Invoice No.1486784449983330235 dt. 11.2.2017 vide order No.5170209423500305. It is further alleged that he got insured the said mobile with OP No.1 vide relationship No.1461859 dt. 13.2.2017. It is further alleged that on 03.3.2017, when he was taking the said phone from his pocket, it slipped and fell down on the floor and due to which, mobile display broken, but the mobile set was still in working condition. It is further alleged that on the same day, he got lodged a complaint vide Service request No.1814474 dt. 3.3.2017 with OP No.1 Online/Customer Care Phone No.912242983000 and the official of OP No.1 took the said damaged mobile from him. It is further alleged that he requested the OPs time and again and requested either to change the damaged mobile against new one or to refund the full insured amount of Rs.19,999/-, but the OPs offered to receive Rs.15,249/- after depreciation of 25% of total insured amount. It is further alleged that at the time of issuing the said insurance policy, it was assured by the OPs that in case of any damage the full insurance will be given to him. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, OP No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed against ex parte vide order dt. 09.11.2017. Further, OP No.2 was given up being unnecessary by the complainant vide recorded his statement.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed evidence on 18.01.2018.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant has purchased a mobile set MI Max Prime Gold 128G from OP No.2 online in the sum of Rs.19,999/- vide Invoice No.1486784449983330235 dt. 11.2.2017 vide order No.5170209423500305 (Ex.C1). It is also admitted case that the complainant got insured the said mobile with OP No.1 vide document Ex.C4 produced by the complainant vide which he paid Rs.1996.65 on 13.02.2017. As per the complainant, on 03.3.2017, the mobile set in question was damaged due to falling down on the floor and he deposited the same with OP No.1 on the same day, but the OP No.1 is offering to pay Rs.15,249/- after depreciation of 25% of total insured amount, whereas, he is legally entitled 100% insurance of the said mobile phone or to replace the same against new one. The complainant has to prove his case himself by producing cogent evidence. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1 to C10. Whereas, on the other hand, the OP No.1 did not appear and proceeded against ex parte. Further, the OP No.2 was given up being unnecessary by the complainant. The version of the complainant regarding the dispute in question has been supported by affidavit. So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes un-rebutted and unchallenged. In our view, the OP No.1 being insurer is liable to compensate 100% insurance to the complainant for damage of his mobile set. The OP No.1 has declined the 100% insurance claim of the complainant, so, the OP No.1 is deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
6. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.19,999/- ‘as cost of mobile set to the complainant. The OP No.1 is also burdened to pay the costs of Rs.1,100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of order till its payments. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.25.1.2018.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
Present : Shri Ramesh Rana, Adv. for the complainant.
OP No.1 ex parte.
OP No.2 given up.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is allowed against OP No.1. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:25.01.2018. Member Presiding Member.
