Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/340

A.S.Medicos - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sachin Goel Adv.

17 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.340 of  04.05.2016

Date of Decision            :  17.07.2017

 

A.S.Medicos, through Rajnish Kumar c/o Shop No.22, Panch Rattan Complex, Dr.Gujjar Mal Road, Pindi Street, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus 

1.Reliance Retail Limited, through its authorized signatory having its showroom at Shop No.15-16, Lower Ground Floor, Westend Mall, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

2.National Insurance Company, having its Branch Office at Kochhar Market, Ludhiana through its Manager/Authorized signatory.

..…Opposite parties

 

 (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

                                                                                  

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Sachin Goel, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Sh.Sahil Sharma, Advocate 

For OP2                         :         Sh.G.S.Kalyan, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

.                  Complainant approached OP1 at their showroom for purchase of laptop of Apple Macbook Air 11 Inches (MD712) on 14.5.2015 and purchased the same for a sum of Rs.65,610/-. Complainant got the said laptop insured from OP2 through OP1 by paying the requisite premium amount. Due receipts in this respect were issued. Even payment regarding extended warranty was made. Daughter of the complainant took the said laptop to Chandigarh, where she is pursuing her studies. Unfortunately on 27.1.2016, the above said laptop got damaged because of fall of water bottle on it. Damage occurred due to liquid spill on the laptop and laptop stooped functioning. Thereafter, laptop was taken to the officials of OP1 with the request to repair the same because of same being under warranty period. However, the officials of OP kept on assuring to do the needful with direction to complainant to come after few days for collecting the same. After few days, when the complainant approached the officials of OP1 for getting the laptop back, then he was disclosed as if sum of Rs.87,806/- will have to be paid by the complainant for repair of the laptop. When the complainant called upon Ops to repair the laptop, being within the warranty period or being under the insurance coverage, then they refused to do so and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, this complaint filed for seeking directions to Ops to repair the laptop as soon as possible. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.22,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.

2.                In written reply submitted by Op1, it is claimed that OP1 is the seller of various electronic items of many manufacturers, at its stores. Whenever a customer calls upon Op1 to buy a product of brands like Sony, Samsung, Nokia, Blackberry, Apple, LG etc., then features of the product are disclosed to the customer concerned for educating him about the same. Complainant  was apprised of the features of Apple Macbook along with terms and conditions of the insurance policy provided by the National Insurance Company Limited. Complainant even was provided with the booklet/card containing warranty terms. From perusal of warranty card, it is made out that onus of providing services is on the manufacturer alone through service centre and it never shifts on the retailer. Further, from the policy documents filed by the complainant, it is made out that complete process regarding activation/policy registration has been declared in the policy documents itself. For better attention of the policy holders, the information pertaining to the registration process of the policy has been declared in highlighted font in a separate rectangular box. It was the responsibility of the complainant to register itself with the concerned insurance company for availing benefits of the insurance. Even it was communicated to the complainant that in case of any insurance claim, he should contact the insurance company directly because of a separate legal entity of the insurer. Complainant never disclosed OP1 about the alleged defect in the purchased laptop from the store of OP1 since after 3.1.2016. Rather, the complainant was dealing directly with the service centre of Apple Macbook for the reason best known to him. That service centre has not been impleaded as party. The complaint is alleged to be filed with misleading facts. Role of OP1 is limited. OP1 being seller/ dealer fulfilled its responsibility, due to which, it is not liable for payment of any damages to the complainant. No cause of action has accrued to the complainant against OP1. Complaint alleged to be filed for getting wrongful gain from Op1 by justifying the wrongful conduct of complainant himself. Moreover, the complaint alleged to be filed on account of vendetta. Admittedly, the laptop in question was purchased by the complainant from OP1 and the same was got insured. Op1 closed its store permanently on 3.1.2016 and as such, allegations in the complaint regarding approach to OP1 on 27.1.2016 for pointing out defects in the laptop denied.

3.                In separate written reply filed by OP2, it is claimed that the complaint is not legally maintainable, particularly when the claim lodged by the complainant was duly entertained, registered and processed and thereafter, applying its mind, the officials of Op2, repudiated the same as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Damage to the laptop was caused due to fall of water and as such, in view of specific exclusionary clause under the policy, claim of the complainant rightly repudiated. Besides this, it is claimed that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. It is claimed that complainant is not entitled for any relief.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and thereafter, counsel for complainant closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Vijay Kumar, Store Manager of OP1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                Counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R2/A of Sh.Ravinder Kumar Sidana, Divisional Manager of OP2 along with document Ex.R2/1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments by counsel for parties addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

8.                Insurance claim certainly is governed by the terms and conditions of contract of insurance because the said contract of insurance is binding on the parties. It is the case of complainant himself that owing to fall of water bottle on the laptop, the same became non-functional. After going through specific exclusions applicable to Section II of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, copy of which is produced on record as Ex.R2/1, it is made out that damage on account of water is not covered by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In view of that specific exclusion clause available at page no.7 of Ex.R2/1, certainly submissions advanced by counsel for OP2 has force that owing to damage to the laptop in question due to fall of water bottle on it, the insurer is not liable to pat any compensation.

9.                Counsel for complainant has placed reliance on Section II(Accidental Damage) clause of Ex.R2/1 for arguing that as damage to the laptop was caused in an unintentional accident and as such, complainant entitled to the insurance claim. The terms of Section II of Accidental Damage is subject to the specific exclusions mentioned at page no.7 and as such, certainly when these terms of Section II along with specifics of exclusion read together, then the same leaves no manner of doubt that     in fact insurance claim is not maintainable because damage to laptop in question caused due to fall of water on it.

10.              As fall of water bottle on the laptop took place as per claim of the complainant himself and as such, it was required to be shown by the complainant that despite due precautions, the laptop cannot be saved. While working on the laptop, no one will keep the water bottle nearby knowing fully well that fall on the water bottle may cause damage to the laptop. Had that precaution been observed for saving the laptop from fall of water bottle on it, then certainly damage to the laptop in question would not have been caused. However fall of the water bottle alleged by the complainant himself in the complaint as well as through submitted affidavit Ex.CA, but without disclosing the circumstances leading to fall of the water bottle and as such, it is obvious that complainant by suppressing the material facts seeking relief through this complaint. What were the precautions observed by the  complainant or his daughter for preventing the fall of water bottle on the laptop qua that no detail or due explanation offered and as such, it has to be held that fall of the water bottle on the laptop took place due to not taking due precautions as are expected from a man of ordinary prudence. Whatever is not done with due care and caution, the same to be deemed to be done in a rash and negligent manner. In view of this, inference is obvious that rashness or carelessness or negligence on the part of daughter of the complainant may have resulted in fall of water bottle on the laptop. For these acts of carelessness, rashness or negligence, OPs cannot be made a scapegoat. So, certainly submissions advanced by counsel for OPs has force that claim of the complainant not entertainable against any of Ops.

11.     Contents of affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Vijay Kumar, Store Manager of OP1 company also establishes as if OP1 concern is lying closed since from 3.1.2016. If this store lying closed since from 3.1.2016, then certainly question of approaching complainant to OP1 on 27.1.2016 or few days thereafter does not arise. Being so, submissions advanced by counsel for OP1 has force that story regarding approaching OP1 after damage  to  the  laptop on 27.1.2016 is not genuine. So, due to concealment of these facts also, complainant is not entitled to any relief.

12.              Complainant approached service centre of Apple Company on 28.1.2016 as disclosed by the contents of Ex.C1 and as such, virtually OP1 was not contacted by the complainant. That service centre of the manufacturer not impleaded as party and as such, complaint has been filed without impleading the necessary parties. Virtually, liability of OP1 as seller came to an end after sale of the product. It is so because after sale of the product, the liability for repair remains of the service centre or of manufacturer. So, due parties even are not impleaded for stacking the claim with respect to damage to the laptop, owing to fall of water bottle. Mention of fall of water also made in Ex.C5, a letter sent to the insurance company by the complainant.      As the damage to the laptop in question not covered by the warranty clause and that is why warranty card issued in favour of complainant has not been produced deliberately by him. Warranty is always provided with respect to the manufacturing defect and not with respect to the defects surfacing due to fault of customer or its user and as such, also the complaint is not maintainable, particularly when the damage to the laptop caused due to carelessness, negligence and mis-handling of the product by the complainant or his daughter. So, no deficiency in service on the part of Ops can be found.

13.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

14.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                     (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                           President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:17.07.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.