Haryana

Ambala

CC/34/2017

Manish Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rocket Kommerce - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                    

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  34 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         :  30.01.2017

                                                          Date of decision   :  28.02.2018

 

 

Manish Saini s/o Ram Pal Singh Saini Shahpur, Near Railway Fatak, Ambala  Cantt, Tehsil & District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

 

1.       Rocket Kommerce LLP 4^th Floor, Plot No.183 to 197 & 254 to 258 Bommasandra Jigani Link Road Bommasandra Industrial Area Bommasandra, Banglore-562106 (Through its Auth. Dealer for Redmi Mobile Phone).

2.       One Assistant/Consumer Solution Pvt. Ltd 707-709, Acme Plaza, Opp-Big Cinema, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai -400059.

3.       Professional Couriers Network Ltd, 111 Ist Floor, Railway Road, Near Football Chowk, Ambala Cantt. (Through its Prop).

4.       XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA Pvt. Ltd, 5^th Floor, DELTA Block, Embassy Tech Square, Marathahalli, Sarjapur Outer ring Kadubeesanahalli Bengluru (Karnataka) -560103 (Through its GM)

 

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

 

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for OP No.4.

OPs no. 1 to 3 ex parte v.o.d. 27.03.2017.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant  had purchased online REDMI NOTE 3 GOLD 32GB Smart Phone  vide BAR Code No.-516052562050870301 for Rs.12,374/- from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.1464232506383946804 dated 25.5.2016 with Insurance namely MI Protect for Rs.375/- with one year warranty. In the month of Oct.2016, the above said Mobile set got damaged because the set was dropped in the water by the complainant, after this the complainant  contacted to the OP No.1 and  advised to the complainant that please sent the original bill and all equipment with above mobile set also sent a cancel cheque to the office of OP No.2 for further necessary action. On 25.11.2016, the mobile set with all equipment, original bill, cancel cheque send by the complainant through Professional Courier to the OP No.2 and on 28.11.2016 and they received the same courier or give assurance to the complainant that he will solve the problem. After few days  the complainant received a message that your claim of Rs. 8,849/- have been passed. Now, the OPs No.1 & 2 told  him that his documents which was sending by the complainant not received by this office, then the complainant get all the detail through courier, then   he saw that the courier which is send by him to the OP No.2 they received the same. The complainant contacted the official of the courier company they said that they have receipt their courier, then the complainant again and again approached  to the OPs No. 1 & 2 but not attended the complainant  and flatly refused to do anything in the matter. And after few days the OP No.2 told to the complainant that  his claim of Rs.8849/- has been canceled.  Because of the attitude of OPs, complainant has to harass and suffered mental, physical and monetary loss which is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OPs as well as unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notices issued to Ops No. 1 to 3 but none have turned up on their behalf and OPs No. 1 to 3 was proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 27.03.2017 and Upon notice, OP No.4 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that OP No.4 always assisted the complainant to approach the OP No.2 in connection with the insurance claim of the complainant. On the contrary, it is the OP No.2 who has rejected the claim of the complainant. The insurance  claim of the complainant was however rejected by OP No.4 on account of non-receipt of documents requested by the OP No.2 from the complainant and the OP No.4 has played no role in the claim rejection process. So, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.4 and prayed for dismissal  of the complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.4 tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith Annexure R-1 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for the complainant and OP No. 4 and carefully gone through the case file.

It is proved on the file that complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 25.05.2016 as per Annexure C-1 for amounting Rs. 12,374/- including insurance amount (Rs.11999+375) and complainant had got the insured the mobile in question with OP No.2 vide Annexure-2.  Perusal of the case file reveals that the mobile got physical damage due to dropped in the water within its warranty. The complainant contact to the OP No.2 and asked to send the said defective mobile phone and after checked the said mobile phone the company informed to the complainant  through telephonically message  that the said mobile phone will not be repaired and the claim of the said mobile  phone  has been passed amounting to Rs. 8,849/- and also asked to send the original bill of the above said mobile phone plus cancel cheque and accordingly, complainant has sent the same to the company through Professional Couriers Company on 25.11.2016 as Annexure C-4 and  same has  been received by OP No.2 i.e Insurance company on 28.11.2016 as per Annexure C-5 as per delivery sheet. After some time, the company sent a message to the complainant that the above said documents have not been received by the OP No.2  and the claim of the complainant has been  cancelled.

On the other, hand, OP No.4 has always assisted the complainant to approach the OP No.2 in connection with the insurance claim of the complainant. On the contrary, it is the OP No.2 who has rejected the claim of the complainant. The insurance claim of the complainant was however rejected by OP No.4 on account of non-receipt of documents requested by the OP No.2 from the complainant and the OP No.4 has played no role in the claim rejection process.

It is proved on the file that the complainant has sent the requisite documents through courier company i.e OP No.3 on 25.11.2016 as per Annexure C-4 and same has been received by OP No.2 as per Annexure C-5 and so after receiving the documents, insurance company has wrongly rejected the claim on the account of non-receipt of the documents as per letter Annexure C-1. Therefore, it was the boundant duty of the OP No. 2 to indemnify the claim lodged qua the insured mobile. OP No.2 has not indemnified the loss of the complainant which is tantamount to deficient in service on the part of insurance company i.e. OP No.2. In the present case, OPs No. 1 to 3 have also proceeded against exparte. Therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted qua the OPs 1 to 3 and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant. As per Annexure C-6 addressed to the complainant the insurance company has assessed the loss Rs. 8,849/- after deducting the 20% depreciation and 3% has less the excess clause. Perusal of the facts of the case, the complainant has used the mobile approximately for  only 5 months. In this way, the insurance company has wrongly deducted the @ 20% deprecation value of the mobile. However insurance company i.e OP No.2 has rightly deducted @3% claim amount as excess clause.

5.                In view of the above discussion, we come to this conclusion that the present complaint is hereby dismissed against the OPs No.1,3 & 4 and allowed against Op No.2 with cost and insurance company(OP No.2) is directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To pay the amount of Rs. 10,249/-(Rs.11999-750 @ 3% excess clause) without deducting the depreciation amount as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.

 (ii)    Also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 28.02.2018                                

 

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)     (ANAMIKA GUPTA)     (D.N. ARORA)

          Member                              Member                         President