Date of filing: 17.04.2017 Date of disposal: 26.07.2018
Complainant: Sudipta Bhowmick, S/o. Late Nikhil Chandra Bhowmick, Sankharipukur Housing, Qrs. No. S/31, PO: Sripally, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 103.
- V E R S U S -
Opposite Party: 1. Proprietor, Eltron Mobile, 72, B. Road, Near Sadar Thana, Burdwan-713 101.
2. Proprietor, Apps Daily Mobile Protection, C/o. Eltron Mobile, 72, B. C. Road, Near Sadar Thana, Burdwan-713 101.
3. General Manager, Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd., D/3137, Oberoi Garden Estates, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 072.
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Chandrani Bhattacharya.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: Ld. Advocate, Debdas Rudra.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2&3: None (ex parte).
J U D G E M E N T
This is a case u/S. of C.P. Act 1986 against deficiency of service and unfair acts on the part of the O.Ps. and directing either an award of Rs.10,000/- for harassment and Rs.2,500/- for litigation and to deliver a new mobile set of similar model or the entire cost of Rs.14,250/- including protection charge of Rs.1,200/- with 12% interest.
The complainant’s case in short is that he had purchased a Samsung Mobile Phone from O.P. No.1 with a battery and a charger at Rs.14, 250/- on 15.06.2016. On the same day, the O.P. No.1 had collected from the complainant for the Product Apps Daily Platinum and supplied a leaflet of Apps Daily in which there was a protection for handset up to Rs.15,000/- and protection against physical damage, liquid damage, theft, data-loss and viruses. It was also displayed that there was a 10 days guaranteed replacement or repair. Unfortunately, the handset was theft on 29.09.2016 from the bag at the local market at Birhata and the incident was reported to the Police Station, Burdwan Sadar on 30/09/2016. As the complainant had given earlier the value of its protection to the seller, the matter was then brought to the notice. But, in spite of repeated request, the O.P. No.1 did not care to attend the grievance of the company. Then the complainant, through a detailed letter, informed the matter to the O.P. No.3 under Speed Post on 06.10.2016, but it proved to be also in vain. Having no result even after several requests, the complainant approached to the Burdwan District Consumer Protection and Welfare Centre, Burdwan for their interference to the matter BDCP and WC in their letter No. 34/BDCP dated 10.03.2017 requested the O.P. No.1 to do the needful according to what had been written by the Protection claim forwarding copies to O.P.-3 with request to arrange compensation to the complainant. As neither any reply nor any step have been taken by the O.Ps., the complainant filed case against the O.Ps. before the District Consumer Forum, Burdwan.
This complaint is contested by the OP-1 by filing written version denying the allegation made by the complainant in the petition of complaint against the OP-1.
The case of the OP-1 is that this OP is acting as selling agent of Apps Daily Mobile Protection under the OP-3 for the purpose of insurance of the mobile set thereby protecting the physical damage/liquid damage/theft/data loss/virus of the Samsung mobiles for the benefit of customers. If any customer expresses their desire to take the benefit of this Apps Daily Mobile Protection, this OP made arrangement of the insurance for the protection of the mobiles. The complainant decided to make insurance of his handset and purchased the Apps Daily Platinum 15K from this OP and this OP after receiving the value of the product, issued Tax Invoice Cum challan of Rs. 1200/- being challan No. 01464/16-17 dated 15.06.2016 in favour of the complainant. Also it is very much clear this OP is not responsible for any claim against loss or damage of the mobile set as lodged by the complainant against this OP. if the complainant has any claim in connection of loss or damage o the hand set mobile, then the OP-3 is liable to pay the about of claim, after observing all the official formalities as per terms and conditions of Apps Daily Mobile Protection. The OP-1 further submitted that regarding insurance of protection of the mobile set under Apps Daily Mobile Protection this OP has no role to play, the entire liability and responsibility for protection of the hand set mobile shall be borne by the OP. the OP-1 prayed for rejecting the complaint against this OP.
-: Decision With Reasons :-
Undisputedly, the complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps. and had not received grateful behavior as a consumer. He had made a contract for handset protection with O.P. No. 2 and 3 but did not receive it when he needed. Definitely, the O.P. No.2 and 3 are proved guilty as they did not take any step even after ordered by the BDCP and WC. Hence, the complainant succeeds to contest his case.
So, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 59/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP-1 and allowed ex parte against the OP-2&3 with cost directing the OP-2&3 either to give a new set of similar set of mobile phone to the complainant or refund the full value of the handset of Rs. 14,250=00 within 45 days from the date of passing of this award, in default, the awarded amount will carry 9% interest for the default period and the OP-2&3 is also directed to pay Rs. 2,000=00 as compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and Rs. 1,000=00 as litigation cost either jointly or severally within 45 days from the date of passing of this award, in default, the complainant is at liberty to put the entire award in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) DCDRF, Burdwan
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
