Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/803

Jai Krishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paladin System - Opp.Party(s)

08 Dec 2014

ORDER

 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                Dt. of institution                      : 02.12.2014

 

Case. No.DF-III/803/2014/                                                               Date of order                      : 11.02.2016

In the matter of :-

Mr. Jai Kishan,

B-4601, Gali No.112,

Sant Nagar, Burari,

New Delhi-110084                                                                                    Complainant

Vs.

Paladin System Pvt. Ltd.,

Collection Point (Insurance Co.),

27/5, Ashok Nagar, Jail Road,

New Delhi.                                                                                                   OP-No.1

 

Also At:

 

Home Serve (Insurance Co.),

114, Westerned Mall,

District Centre, Janak Puri,

New Delhi-110058.

 

Hi-Fly Infotech,

624, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar,

(Near Batra Cinema),

Delhi-110009.                                                                                             OP-No.2

 (R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT)

O R D E R     

            The brief facts of the present complaint as stated are that Jai Kishan, complainant purchased one XOLO A600 mobile handset on 12.12.13 for sale consideration of Rs. 8,000/- from opposite party No.3.   On the same day he purchased paladin protection plan  for two years from opposite parties No.1 & 2 on payment of Rs. 800/-.    The  mobile  handset  was  not  working  properly.  

-2-

Therefore, he informed to opposite party No.1.  The engineer of the opposite party No.1 after 4 days picked up the mobile handset from the house of the complainant for repairs.   He told the complainant that the mobile handset will be returned after repairs.  He also  promised to provide standby mobile handset within 03 days.  But even after 15 days, the opposite party No.1 did not give any information about status of the mobile handset.  The complainant made several telephonic calls and approached the opposite party No.2.  But to no effect.   Thereafter, an employee  of the opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that the mobile handset can not be repaired  and they are ready to refund  amount of Rs. 1,600/-.  The complainant declined the offer  and requested the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to return the mobile handset in the same condition.  But till today the mobile handset is not returned.   Hence, the present complaint  for direction to the opposite parties to refund the cost of the mobile handset and pay compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony.

 

            After notice the opposite parties No.1 & 2 filed joint reply while raising preliminary objections of concealment of true and material  facts.   The opposite parties No.1 & 2 are not insurer.   The opposite party No.2 has its brand name Home Serve.  There is no direct contact between opposite parties No.1 & 2 and the consumers. Whereas it is duty of the dealers  to provide protection plan given by opposite parties No. 1 & 2.  Opposite party No. 1 provides pick and drop facility and get checked the mobile handset through aurthorised service centres .

 

 

-3-

            However, on merits, the opposite parties No.1 & 2 denied the allegations of the complainant and asserted  that no insurance was given by opposite parties No.1 and 2.  They gave  protection plan only to the complainant as per the terms & conditions of the policy.   There is no replacement condition in the policy.   The complainant was offered Rs. 1600/- as full and final settlement  but he refused. They further asserted that as per the protection plan if the mobile handset is un-repairable only 20% of amount is given if the handset is used for nine to sixteen months.  The opposite parties No.1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

 

            The complainant did not file rejoinder to the reply of opposite parties No.1 & 2.   He filed evidence by way of affidavit dt. 8.4.15 and relied upon invoice dated 12.12.13, protection plan dated 12.12.13 and job sheet No.6055 dated 06.10.14.   He has narrated the facts of the complaint once again in affidavit dated 8.4.15.  From perusal of the invoice  dated 12.12.13, protection plan dated 12.12.13 and job sheet No.6055 dated 6.10.14, it reveals that the complainant purchased  one mobile handset XOLO A-600 from opposite party No.3 on 12.12.13 for sale consideration of Rs. 8,000/-.   The complainant on the same day purchased protection plan with pick-up and drop facility on payment of Rs. 800/- from the opposite parties No.1 & 2 for two years .  The employees of opposite parties No.1 & 2 picked up the handset.   On 06.10.14, the hand  set was covered under the protection plan when given to opposite parties    No.1 & 2.

 

-4-

            Therefore, he suffered a loss of Rs. 8100/-, cost of the mobile handset.  He has also suffered mental pain, agony and harassment.  The complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and loss of use of mobile in question

 

            The opposite parties No.1 & 2 failed to file affidavit of its any employee stating that the mobile handset is returned  and handset was not covered  under the protection plan.

 

            The complainant in support of his version has relied upon affidavit dated 8.4.15, invoice dated 12.12.13,  protection plan No. dated12.12.13 and job sheet No. 6055 dated 06.10.14.  The evidence of complainant has  remained un-rebutted and un-challenged.  Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the un-rebutted an unchallenged evidence produced by the complainant.   The complainant from the un-rebutted affidavit, invoice, protection plan and job sheet has been able to prove that on 12.12.13  he purchased one handset XOLO A-600 from opposite party No. 3 for Rs. 8,000/-. On the same day he purchased protection plan from opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for Rs. 800/-.  The mobile hand set was not working properly. He made complaint to opposite parties No.1 & 2.   The employee of opposite parties No.1 & 2 picked up the handset, they did not return the handset till today.    The complainant is deprived of his valuable right to use the mobile handset.   Therefore, there is negligence and deficiency-in-service on the part of the opposite parties No.1&2.    Hence, the complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 8000/- as cost of the mobile handset and Rs. 800/- premium of the protection plan from the opposite parties.   He is also entitled to recover Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain, agony, sufferings and litigation charges.

 

 

 

 

-5-

            In the light of above discussion and observations, the complaint succeeds and  is hereby allowed .    The  opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay a  sum of Rs. 8,000/-, the cost of mobile handset with interest @ 9% p.a.,                   from filing the present complaint till actual realisation of the amount, Rs. 800/- as premium of the protection plan and Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain, agony, sufferings and litigation charge.

 

Order pronounced on   : 11.02.2016

 

 

• Compliance of the order be made within the 30 days after receipt of the order.

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                               (URMILA GUPTA)                   ( R.S.  BAGRI )

  MEMBER                                            MEMBER                               PRESIDENT