Delhi

East Delhi

CC/663/2015

YASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PALADIN SYSTEM - Opp.Party(s)

28 Aug 2018

ORDER

                         CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer Complaint no.        663 / 2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  28/08/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 28/08/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          04/09/2018  In matter of

Mr. Yesh, adult       

s/o-Sh Surendra Kumar

R/o – 106, 2^nd Floor, Gali no. 4

Shankar Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Delhi 110051

Through – Mr Ajit B Vasirani……………………..………..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1 Mr Mathew Augestin,

Director, Paladin System,  

C-16, Pkt A, Mayur Vihar-Phase II, Delhi, 110092 

 

2- Mr Baljeet Singh   

Director, Paladin System,  

H N.- E 7, Bali Nagar, New Delhi 110015

 

3-Mr Ajay Ranjan Mishra

Director, Paladin System,  

D-1/85, Janakpuri, Nr. Tihar Jail, New Delhi

Also at- B-4/179-B, Lawrance Road, New Delhi 110035

 

4- M/s Paladin System Pvt Ltd.

27/5, Ashok Nagar, Jail Road,

Tilak Nagar, New Delhi 110018 ………………………...…………..……….Opponents

 

Complainant …………………………………In Person

Opponent……………….……....…………..Ex Parte

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case  -                       

Complainant purchased Apple 5S Space Grey coloured 16 GB handset online on 29/09/2014 for a sum of Rs 33990/-having IMEI no. 352045060798849  vide  invoice no.  GJ-SAMA-132519531 (Ex CW1/1). The hand set was insured by “M/s Paladin System Pvt Ltd” / OP4 after paying insurance amount Rs 3399/-which covered theft also (Ex CW1/2).  

The said mobile whose no. was 971160403 got theft on 26/10/2014 at Lal Quarter Market, Delhi 51, so FIR was lodged vide FIR no. 779 (Ex CW1/3) on same day and also informed OP4 with all the required claim documents. It was stated that complainant received ‘Un-Trace Report’ from Police on 04/03/2015 (Ex CW1/4). Thereafter intimation of theft was given to OP4 on 05/03/2015 and took new SIM card under the name of Paramjeet Kaur (Ex CW1/5).

Even after repeated visit to OP4 office, no correct address was located as given in protection plan of Home Serve of OP4, so informed OP1 for his claim amount of the hand set of Rs 33990/-When no satisfactory reply was received from OP1, filed this complaint claiming refund of his handset Rs 33990/-from OP1 with Rs 3399/- as insurance amount and compensation Rs 12611/- for mental harassment. So in all, claimed total Rs 50,000/-including legal expenditure. 

After issuing notices, none of OPs submitted written statement. Even after issuing Dasti notices, OP refused to accept the notices meaning thereby notices were served and OPs intentionally refused to accept the notices, so complainant submitted his affidavit in support of refusal of dasti notices, hence OPs were proceeded Ex-parte.

Complainant filed his Ex Parte evidences on affidavit which were taken on record. As the evidence was not controverted, so presumed to be true. 

Arguments were heard from the complainant and after perusal of records on file, order was reserved.  

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was observed that complainant has not filed his claim with OP4 soon after theft occurred on 26/10/2014, but informed OP4 on 05/03/2015 (Ex CW1/5). No terms and conditions pertaining to insurance covering theft was filed as terms and conditions were printed at the back of ‘Protection Plan’ of Home Serve enrolment form vide PPP no. 28424. Though the said handset was insured for two years, but refund of cost of the mobile would depend upon terms and conditions of insurance given by OP4. Complainant has not filed required documents pertaining to claim to OP4 from where it could be established deficiency of OP4. In absence of merits in complaint, we cannot fasten any liability on any OPs. So this complaint deserves to be dismissed for want of required documents hence dismissed without any direction or cost.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 ( in short CPR)  and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari –Member                                                                      Mrs Harpreet Kaur – Member

 

                                                                 Sukhdev Singh  President