Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/839/2019

Rekha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Electric - Opp.Party(s)

V.Sekhawat

12 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 839 of 2019

                  Date of Institution             : 26.11.2019

                                                           Date of Decision               : 12.06.2024

 

Smt. Rekha wife of Sh. Gori Shankar R/o H.No.230, Dinod Gate, Ashoka Colony, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Royal Electronics, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani through its authorized representative.

 

2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Reg. Office: 34, Nehru Place, Delhi-110019 through its authorized representative.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Virender Shekhawat, Adv. for complainant.

                    None for OP No.1 (defence struck off).

Complaint against OP No.2 stands dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2022.

 

ORDER

 

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that  complainant purchased a MI Mix2 mobile phone, black colour from OP No.1 in a sum of Rs.37,500/-. Complainant got the mobile phone insured from OP No.2 under policy No.IM-2138028. On 29.08.2019, the mobile phone slipped from the hand of complainant and got completely damaged. So, on the advice of OP No.1, complainant contacted authorized service center of OP company and vide inspection sheet dated 03.09.2019, it reported total damage and assessed loss of Rs.33,217/-. So, complainant lodged claim with OP No.2 and also sent the mobile phone through courier on 03.09.2019 but the OP No.2 insurance company did not release any claim which as per complainant amounts to negligence and deficiency in service.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred seeking directions against the Ops to pay Rs.37,500/- as cost of mobile phone alongwith interest @24% per annum from the date of loss till payment to the complainant. Further, Rs.1.00 lac on account of harassment etc.  Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared but failed to file written statement despite availing sufficient opportunities. Hence, defence of OP No.1 struck off vide order dated 17.03.2023.

3.                 Notices to OP No.2 could not be sent for want of certain formalities by complainant. As such, vide detailed order dated 04.10.2022, complaint qua OP No.2 was dismissed.

4.                 Complainant side, in evidence, tendered affidavit of complainant as Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence on 22.05.2024.

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the record.

6.                 At the outset, from contents of the complaint and documents placed on record from complainant side, the grievance of complainant reveals against OP No.2 insurance company but the Commission vide order dated 24.08.2022 has already dismissed complainant against it. Further, OP No.1 is a retail shop from where complainant has purchased the mobile phone in question and there is no allegation in the complaint against it, therefore, no liability can be shifted to towards OP No.1.

7.                 In such circumstances, we are inclined to dismiss the present complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.  

Announced.

Dated:12.06.2024.