Ranjeev Kumar filed a consumer case on 12 Jul 2017 against Roman Art Gallery in the Sangrur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/89/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 20 Jul 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 89
Instituted on: 08.03.2017
Decided on: 12.07.2017
Ranjeev Kumar son of Jawahar Lal resident of Amargarh, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. Roman Art Gallery, Bus Stand to College Road, Malerkotla District Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory. .
2. Unicon India Pvt. Limited Ladon Wali Gali, Near Denik Bhaskar Office Jalandhar.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri Rajan Kapil, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1 : Shri L.K.Singla, Advocate.
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2 : Exparte
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Ranjeev Kumar, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased mobile model No.G-925 Samsung for Rs.42000/- after getting extra discount of Rs.7990/- on 30.11.2015 from OP No.1 vide invoice number 1013 dated 30.11.2015. The complainant got insured his mobile and paid Rs.2299/- for the insurance of the mobile. On 7.3.2016 mobile in question of the complainant was missed and the complainant also lodged a mobile missing report at police station Amargarh on 10.03.2016. As per advice of the Op the complainant submitted the required documents i.e. claim form , FIR , invoice copy, photo ID proof and SIM blocking letter for logging the claim. No claim has been given to the complainant till date. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to replace the mobile phone or in the alternative refund Rs.42000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase from till realization,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as counsel fee and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Despite service OP no.2 did not appear and as such OP no.2 is proceeded exparte.
3. In reply filed by the OP no.1, purchase of the mobile phone is admitted. It is submitted that mobile phone has collaboration with Unicon India Pvt. Limited Insurance Company and company has authorized Arihant Traders, Malerkotla to distribute the cell phone and the same was purchased by OP no.1 from Arihant Traders and Insurance number M1508USS06259 was given. It is submitted that after sale guarantee and warranty is only from company service centre and nothing is to be done by the OP no.1. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.
4. The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 and closed evidence.
5. It is not in dispute that complainant purchased a mobile phone of Samsung company for Rs. 42000/- after getting extra discount of Rs.7990/- from the OP no.1 and same was got insured from the OP no.2 through OP no.1 after paying premium of Rs.2299/- which was disclosed by OP no.1 in their written reply.
6. The complainant's grievance is that his mobile set in question was misplaced on 7.3.2016, of which an intimation was given to the OP no.1 and all the required documents i.e. claim form, FIR, invoice copy, photo ID proof and SIM blocking letter were submitted with the OP but no claim has been given to him till today. On the other hand OP no.1 specific case is that after sale guarantee and warranty is only of the company service centre and if any grudge the same is responsibility of the insurance company i.e. OP no.2.
7. The OP no.1 has produced on record Uni-com Suraksha Insurance Kit containing CD and policy Ex.OP1/2 and copy of Vat invoice Ex.OP1/3 which clearly show that complainant's mobile set in question was insured with Op no.2 vide Smart Suraksha Plan Mega M1508USS06259 and insurance premium was paid to the OP no.2 vide vat invoice dated 27.08.2015 Ex.OP1/3. The OP no.2 has not come forward to contest the case of the complainant rather it chosen to remain exparte. As such evidence produced by the complainant and OP no.1 has gone unrebutted on record.
8. For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP no.2 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.42000/- as insurance claim amount of the mobile set in question as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. We further order the OP no.2 to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.2000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
9. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.
Announced
July 12, 2017
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.