| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 325 of 24.8.2017 Decided on: 1.4.2021 Gurmeet Kaur, aged 63 years, w/o S.Rajinder Singh, r/o # 20, Corner view, Near Walia Hospital, Dukhniwaran Road, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Phone Zone, Shop No.1,Bahera Road, Near A.C.Market, Car Parking, Patiala through its Proprietor.
- The New India Assurance Company Limited, Chhoti Baradari, Leela Bhawan, Patiala through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.
- Apps Daily Pvt. Ltd. C/o Phone Zone, Shop No.1, Bahera Road, Near A.C.Market, Car Parking, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Amar Singh, counsel for complainant. Sh.H.P.S.Verma, counsel for OP no.1. Sh.D.P.S.Anand, counsel for OP No.2. (Complaint filed against OP No.3 has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.3.2018) ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Gurmeet Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Phone Zone and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act.
- Briefly the case of the complainant is that he purchased an I phone 732 GB on installments from OP No.1 vide retail invoice dated 30.12.2016 and got the same insured with OP No.2 vide policy No.95000046161100000001covering the risk of theft and accidental damage. It is averred that on 15.3.2017 the complainant was going from Leela Bhawan to her residence with her friend on the bike at 7.01PM and while she was attending a phone call suddenly a car came from wrong side and the bike as a result of which they fell down and mobile set was damaged. On the next day, son of the complainant approached OP No.1 and filled the claim form and submitted the same with OP No.1 alongwith damaged mobile phone on 23.3.2017 for repairing or changing the body but the OP No.1 returned the mobile phone without repairing the same. It is averred that the mobile was again fell down on 16.5.2017 and damaged and again it was handed over to OP No.1 for repair or for replacement but the OP No.1 rejected the claim vide e-mail dated 24.3.2017 but the same was reopened vide e-mail dated 16.5.2017 and the claim was approved vide e-mail dated 26.5.2017 but the same was dropped vide e-mail dated 10.6.2017.There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to make the payment of Rs.58500/- to the complainant alongwith interest or to replace the set with new brand and superior model and also to pay compensation and costs of litigation.
- Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing separate written statements.
- In the written statement filed by OP No.1 it is submitted that there is dealing between the complainant and the insurance company regarding any insurance claim and it only deals in selling new mobile phones and repair of the mobile phone if there is any manufacturing defect. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 as no case is made out against it. After denying all other averments, the OP No.1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In the written statement filed by OP No.2 preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has never intimated, informed and lodged any claim for the damage caused to her I phone; that the complainant has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint; that the present complaint is pre mature as the complainant did not supply the requisite documents and the company was unable to decide the claim.
- On merits, it is denied that the complainant purchased the I phone and got the same insured with the OP. It is however, stated that on 15.3.2017 the complainant was going from Leela Bhawan to her residence with her friend on bike and was attending the phone call. All the other averments made in the complaint have been denied and OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Harpreet Kaur, Prop and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Rajinder Singh, Sr.Divisional Manager and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased an Iphone of 732 GB on installments from OP No.1 on 30.12.2016 and the same was insured with OP No.2.The ld. counsel further argued that on 15.3.2017 the complainant was going to Leela Bhawan with her friend on the bike and at about 7.01PM when she was listening the phone suddenly a car hit the bike and they fell down and the mobile was damaged. The son of the complainant filled a form but the set was not repaired and on 16.5.2017 the complainant again fell down the mobile phone. The ld. counsel further argued that the OPs have not paid the claim, so the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that OPs No.1&2 has no business tie up with each other. There was never any assurance given by OP No.1 and phone was gone insured from OP No.2. The ld. counsel further argued that there is no relation with regard to the insurance with OP No.1 , so the complaint be dismissed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.2 has argued that there is no insurance document on the file. The ld. counsel further argued that the mobile was never insured with OP No.2 and the complaint is false, so the same be dismissed.
- To prove the case, Smt.Gurmeet Kaur has tendered her affidavit Ex.CA and she has deposed as per the complaint,Ex.C1 is the retail invoice of OP No.1 dated 30.12.2016,Ex.C2 is claim type form, Ex.C3 is rejection of the claim, Ex.C4 another rejection mail, Ex.C5 is reminder.
- This is strange case, as per the complainant the mobile was insured with OP No.2 but there is no evidence on the file that the same was insured with OP No.2. There is no cover note or any insurance document of New India Assurance Co. on the file which can show that Smt.Gurmeet Kaur had got insured the mobile with OP No.2 through OP No.1.The OP No.1 in the written statement has stated that it has no business tie up with the insurance company. In the written statement it has denied that the mobile was insured with OP No.2. Without any cover note it is not proved that alleged mobile in question was ever insured with OP No.2.There is claim formEx.C2 of the New India Assurance Co. but the claim form has not bearing any signature of any official of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. nor any insurance number is mentioned. So this document seems to be fake document created by the complainant. Without any evidence of insurance cover, the insurance company cannot be burdened with any amount. The mobile in question was purchased vide Ex.C1 but it is not proved that how much warranty was given by OP No.1.It is always mentioned that warranty will be provided by the service centre only but the service center has not been made party by the complainant.
- On behalf of Smt.Harpreet Kaur, of OP No.1 has tendered her affidavit, Ex.OPA and she has deposed as per the written statement. Sh.Rajinder Singh Mahatam, Sr.Divisional Manager of OP No.2 has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPB.
- So due to our above discussion, this complaint is totally false as there is no evidence on the file to prove that the mobile phone was ever insured with OP No.2 and there is no evidence on the file that what type of warranty was given by OP No.1.As per the pleadings the phone fell down when Gurmeet Kaur was listening the phone on the scooter, so the complainant herself has irresponsible, so the complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
ANNOUNCED DATED:1.4.2021 Y.S.Matta Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member Member President | |
