Haryana

Panchkula

CC/166/2015

SAHIL CHAHAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RANVIR MOBILE SOLUTIONS. - Opp.Party(s)

PAWAN KUMAR.

01 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.             

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	166 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	25.08.2015
Date of Decision	:	01.03.2016

                                                                                          

Sahil Chahal, aged 16 years, s/o Late Sh.Rajbir Singh, being minor through his mother-cum-natural guardian Smt.Sudesh Kumari w/o Late Sh.Rajbir Singh, R/o House No.1241, Ground Floor, New Housing Board Colony, Sector-19, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. Ranvir Mobile Solutions, Shop No.457, village Abhaypur, Panchkula authorized service centre of the Karbon, through its authorized signatory.
2. Mobile Magic, SCO No.28, Sector-11, Panchkula through its Prop.
3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, SCO No.804, NAC, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Pawan Kumar, Adv., for the complainant. 

Ops already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that on 28.01.2015, the mother of the complainant purchased a mobile in the name of minor as a gift from Ambala for a sum of Rs.12,000/- with warranty of one year. Thereafter, on 28.01.2015, the mother the complainant approached the Op No.2 for the insurance of the handset. The Op No.2 insured the mobile vide invoice No.5452 dated 28.01.2015 which was valid from 28.01.2015 to 27.01.2016 and received a sum of Rs.1000/- and deposited the requisite documents. As per the insurance cover, the mobile was insured from fire, lightning, riot, strike, malicious damage, theft/burglary, accidental external means including accidental liquid damage, fortuitous circumstances in knowledge of the insured and act of God Perils viz flood, hurricane, storm, tempest and Typhoon. Unfortunately, on 22.07.2015, the mobile had fallen and the display/screen was damaged and there was no response on the screen of the mobile set. Thereafter, the mobile had also developed other defects. The complainant lodged a complaint regarding the damage with the Op No.3 on 23.07.2015 who directed the complainant to approach the Op No.1 i.e. authorized service center and got deposited the mobile for repair. The Op No.1 issued job card No.3219 dated 31.07.2015 and the complainant also deposited the requisite documents to OP No.1. Thereafter, the mother of the complainant visited the Op No.1 several times but to no avail. When on 28.08.2015, the mother of the complainant approached the OP No.1 to receive the mobile but the Op No.1 refused to repair the handset on the ground that the complainant is minor and the insurance of the minor was not valid and the mobile could only be repaired if the complainant paid the repair amount to them. The complainant approached the Op No.2 and disclosed the fact to it but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant tried to contract the Op No.3 on their customer care number but in vain. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Ops No.1 to 3 through registered post but none appeared on behalf of Ops No.1 to 3. Despite passing of 30 days, it is deemed to be served and the Ops No.1 to 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 05.10.2015.
3. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence.
4. On the request of the counsel for the complainant, notice was issued to the Excellent Gallery, 2-D.C.Road. Ambala Cantt with the direction to produce the original bill book No.5452 dated 28.01.2015 for clarification of Annexure C-1 before this Forum but it did not appear.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. Admittedly, on 28.01.2015, the mother of the complainant purchased a mobile in the name of minor as a gift from Ambala for a sum of Rs.12,000/- with warranty of one year (Annexure C-1). Thereafter, on 28.01.2015, the mother the complainant insured the mobile vide invoice No.5452 (Annexure C-2) dated 28.01.2015 which was valid from 28.01.2015 to 27.01.2016 from the Op No.2 and paid a sum of Rs.1000/- for insurance of mobile. As per the insurance cover, the mobile was insured from fire, lightning, riot, strike, malicious damage, theft/burglary, accidental external means including accidental liquid damage, fortuitous circumstances in knowledge of the insured and act of God Perils viz flood, hurricane, storm, tempest and Typhoon. Unfortunately, on 22.07.2015, the mobile had fallen and the display/screen was damaged. The complainant approached the Op No.1 i.e. authorized service center and got deposited the mobile for repair. The Op No.1 issued job card No.3219 (Annexure C-3) dated 31.07.2015 with remarks “touch break”. On 28.08.2015, the mother of the complainant approached the OP No.1 to receive the mobile but the Op No.1 refused to repair the handset on the ground that the complainant is minor and the insurance of the minor was not valid. After perusal the Annexure C-2, it reveals that there is nowhere mentioned that the insurance of the minor is not valid and the demand of repair charges is invalid. The mobile is also under warranty and the service center is liable to repair the same free of costs. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
7. Moreover, the Ops did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops despite notices show that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is proved.
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are jointly and severely directed as under:-

(i)      To repair the mobile free of cost.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment.

(iii)    To pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.

                  Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

01.03.2016      S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR         DHARAM PAL

                                  MEMBER           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

         

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                         PRESIDENT