Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/11/2017

Manish Modi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance company limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Runish Dhiman

28 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.11 of 2017

                                                        Date of institution:  20.02.2017                          

                                                     Date of decision   :  28.01.2019

Manish Modi Advocate, Civil Courts Amloh, R/o Amloh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional office at SCO 109/111 Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
2. Complete Secure Solutions Pvt. Ltd., House Feed Society, Sector 79, Mohali Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab through its Authorized signatory/Partner.
3. Complete Secure Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Aakash Avenue, Near Tata Mall, Hydrabad.
4. Complete Secure Solutions Pvt. Ltd. C-127, 3^rd Floor, Phase-8, Industrial Area, Mohali through its Authorized signatory/Partner.
5. Santosh Telecom, Gaushala Road Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh through Sukh Bedi @ Tittu.

 

…..Opposite parties

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Kuljit Singh, President

Sh. Inder Jit, Member   

         

                            

Present :   Sh. Runish Dhiman,Adv.Cl. for complainant.

                  Sh. Amit Gupta, Adv.Cl. for the opposite party No.1.

                  Sh. Lalit Gupta, Adv.Cl. for OPs No.2,3 & 4.

                  Opposite party No.5 exparte.

 

ORDER

Kuljit Singh, President

                  Complainant Manish Modi Advocate, Civil Courts Amloh, R/o Amloh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “OPs”) under Section 11 to 14 the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.               The complainant purchased one mobile of Samsung A-510 having IMEI No.358005071353129 for an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 23.06.2016. Thereafter, the complainant got insured the said mobile hand set with OPs No. 1 & 2 through OP No.3 and paid the requisite amount as required by OPs and they issued kit code No.CSSN 159902652 to the complainant on 05.07.2016.  Thereafter, on 20.07.2016 the mobile hand set of the complainant was damaged due to an accident as a motor cycle struck with his Activa when he was going to his residence from work. The complainant immediately lodged a complaint with OPs on the same day i.e. 20.07.2016. The officials of OPs No.1 & 2 told the complainant that they will send some documents to the complainant and the agent of the OPs will collect the mobile hand set and after repair of mobile in their own workshop the same will be handed over to the complainant. Thereafter, the OPs send some blank documents i.e. Satisfaction/Discharge Voucher, Receipt etc. through e-mail prior to getting his mobile repaired, which is illegal as the said documents are blank.  The complainant has completed all the formalities for repairing the mobile hand set as required by the OPs on the next day i.e. 21.07.2016 except the said blank documents. But the agent of the OPs has not approached the complainant for collecting the mobile hand set. The complainant requested the OPs a number of times to collect the mobile for its repair but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other and has not repaired the mobile hand set till date. Thereafter, when complainant served a legal notice dated 22.08.2016 upon the OPs, then the employees of the OPs approached the complainant and collected the mobile hand set for its repair and after about 20/25 days, the OPs handed over the mobile hand set to the complainant with an assurance that they repaired the mobile hand set.  But when the complainant used the mobile hand set, then it was found that the mobile is still not working properly. The complainant showed the said problem to the employees of the OPs, who again took the mobile hand set from the complainant and assured that they will get repaired the same properly.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs a number of times, but they neither got repaired the mobile hand set nor handed over the same to the complainant. When complainant again served a legal notice to the OPs, then they handed over the mobile hand set to the complainant without repairing the same. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to repair the mobile hand set of the complainant and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and for causing mental agony and pain to the complainant.

3.               Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs but OP No.5 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OP No.5 was proceeded against exparte.

4.               The complaint is contested by OPs No.1,2,3,& 4.  In reply to complaint OP No.1 stated that neither any reference of the insurance policy has been given in the complaint nor copy of the same attached with the complaint and in the absence of such an information/document, no fruitful purpose will be achieved. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.               In reply to complaint ,OPs NO. 2 to 4 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide this complaint. As regards the facts of the complaint, OPs NO. 2 to 4 stated that they repaired the mobile hand set of the complainant and handed over the same in working condition.  It is further stated that when complainant approached second time, they again repaired the mobile hand set of the complainant just to satisfy him, against the company policy as the company gives claim amount one time for one policy. The complainant approached third time to the OPs for repair of his mobile but they refused to get the same repaired.  The complainant did not come to take his mobile hand set and filed the present complaint.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs No.2 to 4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.               In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of insurance cover as Ex. C-2, copy of kit code number Ex.C-3, copy of bill Ex.C-4, reminder to legal notice Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of S.K.Sharma, DM, Ex. OP1/1. The OPs did not tender any other evidence in their defence despite several opportunities. Hence, the evidence of the OPs was closed by order.

7.               Ld. counsel for the complainant pleaded that the complainant purchased the said mobile hand set and got insured the same with OPs No.1 & 2 through OP No.3 and paid the requisite amount. The insurance of the mobile hand set is for one year. After the purchase of said mobile handset, the same was damaged due to an accident. The complainant lodged complaint with OPs and completed all the formalities for repairing the mobile hand set as required by the OPs. The OPs, after making so many requests and also serving legal notice, repaired the mobile hand set and handed over the same to the complainant with assurance that the defect has been removed but after use it was found that the mobile is still not working properly. The complainant again approached the OPs for removing defects in the mobile but the OPs refused to repair the mobile hand set of the complainant. The Ld. counsel for the complainant pleaded for repair the mobile handset alongwith compensation and litigation charges.

8.               On the other hand the Ld. counsel for OP No.1 submitted that neither any reference of the insurance policy has been given in the complaint nor copy of the same attached with the complaint. The Ld. counsel prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

9.               The Ld.counsel for OPs No.2 to 4 submitted that they repaired the mobile hand set of the complainant two times free of costs. He further stated that as per policy, the company gives claim amount one time for one policy.  The complainant approached third time for repair of the mobile hand set, which is against the policy of the company. The complainant is not entitled for any repair free of costs. The Ld. counsel prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence, written submissions placed on record etc. alongwith oral arguments addressed by the Ld. counsel for the parties. The complainant has placed on record copy of insurance policy Ex. C-2, which shows that insurance cover of the said mobile hand set is for one year, and it also covers all risk i.e. theft, burglary, liquid damage, physical damage( theft and burglary not covered for devices costing less than Rs.5,000/-). The plea of the OPs is that they can repair the mobile hand set only once as per the policy but a perusal of the Ex. C-2 reveals that there is no such clause that the company will repair the mobile hand set only once.

11.             In view of the above, we are of the opinion that OPs No.1 to 3 have committed deficiency in service. Accordingly, we accept this complaint and direct OPs No. 1 to 3 to repair the mobile hand set of the complainant free of costs to the entire satisfaction of the complainant within a period of 45 days. The complainant is also held entitled to Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and Rs. 2000/- as litigation charges payable by OPs No.1 to 3. The damages and the costs may be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. If the orders are not complied with within the stipulated period, it will carry 9% p.a interest till its realization.

12.                       The arguments on the complaint were heard on 14.01.2019 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced                                

 

                   Dated: 28.01.2019