BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 189 of 2015
Date of Institution: 27.3.2015
Date of Decision: 03.05.2016
Rimjim Sharma D/o Manohar Sharma R/o 686/9, Partap Gali, Partap Bazar, Near Golden Temple, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Punjab Electronics, Hall Bazar, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner/Manager/Authorized signatory
- Royal Green Services Private Limited, 212-B, Ground Floor, Street No.2, Vaishali, New Delhi-45, through its Managing Director/CEO/Director/Authorized Signatory
Opposite Parties
Complaint under sections 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh. Aman Prasher,Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.1:Sh.Rupinder Singh,Representative
For Opposite party No.2 : Ex-parte
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Rimjim Sharma complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations, that the complainant has purchased one mobile make Lenovo S960 having IMEI No. 862321023713396 on 27.8.2014 from opposite party No.1 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 20000/- vide invoice No. 29017, copy of the invoice is attached. Opposite party No.1 as agent of opposite party No.2 had also sold one insurance for and on behalf of opposite party No.2 to the complainant against premium of Rs. 1799/- vide invoice No. 41532 dated 28.8.2014. It was specifically stated that this insurance was valid for a period of one year from the date of the device/mobile purchase. The insurance covers the handset in the event of theft and accidental damage (both physically and water damage), copy of the insurance invoice and its terms and conditions is attached. In the month of November 2014, the mobile of the complainant got damaged and its front panel which includes screen and touch panel totally crushed and the complainant immediately approached opposite party No.1 for its claim as per insurance cover. Opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to call opposite party No.2 on the number given on the insurance invoice dated 28.8.2014 and as per the advice of opposite party No.1, complainant contacted opposite party No.2 telephonically and intimated regarding the damage caused to the mobile handset . The opposite parties asked the complainant to get the estimate from some mobile repair centre for getting the claim and as per the demand of the opposite parties, the complainant got prepared one estimate from the authorized service centre and as per the estimate the approximate charges for repairing the mobile set would come to Rs.11000/-. Thereafter, complainant provided the copy of the estimate to opposite party No.1 as agent of opposite party No.2 and opposite parties assured the complainant that claim will be paid to the complainant within 15 days. But,however, opposite parties have failed to pay the compensation to the complainant as promised. The complainant vide instant complaint has made prayer for getting the following reliefs:
(i) The necessary directions may be issued to the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs. 11000/- with interest @ 24% p.a from the date of purchase or to replace the mobile set of same make and specification.
(ii) The compensation of Rs. 20000/- be also awarded to the complainant for the harassment, inconvenience and mental agony suffered to her.
(iii) Cost of the complaint to the tune of Rs. 11000/- be also awarded.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice opposite party No.1 appeared and contested the claim by filing written reply. Opposite party No.2 despite due service did not opt to appear and contest the complaint and as such opposite party No.2 was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In their written statement, opposite party No.1 took certain preliminary objections therein inter-alia that the present complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed ; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and is guilty of suppression of material facts from the notice of this Forum ; that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and the same deserves dismissal; that complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. Replying opposite party has illegally been impleaded as a party while the manufacturer of Lenovo mobile in question have not been made a party in the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that mobile handset in dispute was never damaged accidently but it was damaged due to own negligence of the complainant. It is also denied that the complainant ever approached opposite party No.1 immediately after the alleged damage with the mobile. Rather the complainant approached opposite party No.1 at a much later stage of the alleged damage to the mobile. It is stated that the complainant was asked to submit estimate with opposite party No.2 for getting the claim. The replying opposite party never assured the complainant to get its claim finalized within 15 days , as alleged by the complainant. Remaining facts made in the complaint were also specifically denied and a prayer for the dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. In his bid to prove the complaint, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Rimjim Sharma, complainant as Ex.C-1, copy of retail invoice Ex.C-2, copy of insurance receipt dated 28.8.2014 Ex.C-3, copy of estimate dated 19.12.2014 Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Navneet Arora, Manager, Punjab Electronics, Hall Bazar,Amritsar tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and the representative on behalf of opposite party No.1 and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
7. On the basis of the evidence on record, opposite party No.1 has vehemently contended that it is not disputed that the complainant purchased the mobile hand set in dispute vide invoice dated 27.8.2014, copy whereof is Ex.C-2, from opposite party No.1 . It is further contended that complainant got the mobile handset insured at her own from opposite party No.2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. Claim regarding damage, if any, was to be obtained by the complainant from opposite party No.2 i.e. insurer. It is further contended that the damage has been caused to the mobile handset in dispute due to own negligence of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is not at all responsible to pay any compensation on account of the damage caused to the mobile handset in dispute. Instant complaint against opposite party No.1 is misconceived , therefore, complaint could be dismissed qua the opposite party No.1.
8. However, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that complainant Rimjim Sharma purchased mobile handset in dispute vide memo Ex.C-2 on 27.8.2014 on payment of Rs. 20000/- from opposite party No.1. It is further in evidence that on the recommendation of opposite party No.1 and through opposite party No.1 as agent of opposite party No.2, complainant obtained the insurance invoice , from opposite party No.2 on payment of premium to the tune of Rs. 1799/- , copy of the insurance cover whereof is Ex.C-3. It is further in evidence that mobile handset in dispute got damaged in the month of November 2014 . Intimation regarding the same was immediately given i.e. on 19.12.2014. Opposite party No.1 told the complainant to approach opposite party No.2 for getting the insurance amount. But,however, both the opposite parties No.1 & 2 went on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. As per terms and conditions on the reverse side of the insurance policy, it has been specifically stated that this plan covers handsets in the event of theft and accidental damage (both physically and water damage). The damage caused to the mobile handset of the complainant is squarely covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance cover and the mobile handset was also within warranty period. Opposite party No.1 has tried to pass the buck to opposite party No.2 , whereas opposite party No.2 has wilfully suffered ex-parte. As per terms and conditions of the insurance cover and as per contract entered into between the parties, both opposite parties No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable for paying compensation on account of damage to the mobile set. As per estimate Ex.C-4, the damage caused to the mobile handset was to the tune of Rs. 11000/- .
9. Consequently both the opposite parties No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 11000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order until full and final recovery and the complaint stands allowed accordingly. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order ; failing which complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 3.05.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
