Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/58/2019

Dipinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

OneAssist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Gupta

08 Jul 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/58/2019
Date  of  Institution	:	05/02/2019
Date   of   Decision	:	08/07/2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dipinder Singh son of Sh. Inder Partap Singh, Resident of House No.226, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

 

1.   One Assist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office B-24, Manubharati, Azad Lane, Off S.V Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 40058, through its Auth. Representative.

 

2.   Aadidev International, SCO 1001, Sector 22-B, Ground Floor, Chandigarh, through its Auth. Representative.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   RATTAN SINGH THAKUR PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR        MEMBER

          DR.S.K.SARDANA           MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	None.
For OP No.2	:	Ex-parte.

 

 

PER DR.S.K.SARDANA, MEMBER

 

          In brief, the Complainant purchased a mobile phone Model A7 (64 GB) 2018 from Opposite Party No.2 for an amount of Rs.23,990/- vide invoice dated 10.10.2018 (Annexure C-1). Simultaneously, the Complainant bought an insurance plan for his mobile phone. The said plan was sold on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 by Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.2299/- vide receipt/ cover note (Annexure C-2). On 22.12.2018, the mobile phone of the Complainant accidentally slipped out of his hand and as a result the screen/display of the mobile phone broke. The Complainant lodged a claim in this regard with Opposite Party No.1 through its mobile application. The damage claim was registered with Opposite Party No.1 and the Complainant was asked to submit certain documents for the claim to be processed vide e-mails dated 22.12.2018 and 24.12.2018 (Annexure C-3 & C-4). The documents were submitted vide e-mail dated 25.12.2018 by the Complainant (Annexure C-5). However, to the utter shock of the Complainant, his claim was closed/rejected by Opposite Party No.1 citing that the damage was found due to improper handling vide e-mail dated 27.12.2018 (Annexure C-6). Eventually, vide e-mail dated 03.01.2019 the Complainant requested the Opposite Party No.1 that his claim has wrongly been rejected and thus the mobile screen be replaced as per the insurance plan (Annexure C-7). In response to the same, the Opposite Party No.1 vide e-mail dated 04.01.2019 reiterated its stand for rejecting the claim (Annexure C-9). Finally, the Complainant got the handset repaired at his own cost from Authorized Service Centre vide invoice Annexure          C-10 for an amount of Rs.4158/-. Therefore, as a measure of last resort, alleging the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 04.04.2019.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.2 contested the complaint and filed its reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that answering Opposite Party is merely a service provider which arranged the insurance of the mobile handset of the Complainant from HDFC Ergo. The liability of the answering Opposite Party was limited to act as a facilitator in registering and processing of the claim with the insurance company. Pleading that since the claim was rejected by the Insurance Company, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.

 

5.      The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the Complainant.

 

7.      Admittedly, the Complainant raised damage claim with respect to the mobile handset in question. The same was rejected on the ground of “improper handling” and the Complainant was forced to get the mobile handset repaired at his own expenses from the Authorized Service Centre for Rs.4,158/- .

 

8.      Significantly, the Opposite Party No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

 

9.      Opposite Party No.1 has taken a categoric stand that it is merely a service provider which arranged the insurance of the mobile handset of the Complainant from the insurance company. The liability of the Opposite Party No.1 was thus limited to act as a facilitator in registering and processing of the claim with the insurance company. However, we are not impressed with the stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1, in as much as, the Complainant has made proper payments and has followed the proper procedure in availing the insurance. Needless to mention here that the Opposite Party No.1 has tried to shift its liability to its service partner. So, if any claim lies, the liability is of the Opposite Party No.1, who has admittedly facilitated in securing the insurance policy. Since money for the insurance has been taken by the Opposite Party No.2, on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No.2 is also equally liable to indemnify the Complainant. On these precincts, the act of the Opposite Parties in not repairing the mobile handset, especially when it is duly insured, proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

 

10.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To refund the repair charges of Rs.4,158/- to the Complainant;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

 

[c]  To also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

 

11.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till these are paid, apart from compliance of the directions as in sub-para [c].

 

12.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

08^th July, 2020

                                  Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

 “Dutt”