Case No.CC/475/2017

Date of Institution: -18.09.2017

Order Reserved on: -22.08.2024

           Date of Order: -20.09.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ms.Bhavuk Jain

D/o Sh. Manoj Jain

R/o 1223, Mahavir Bhawan,

Chah Rahat Jama Masjid,

Delhi – 110006.

          …. Complainant

VERSUS

1. Royal Green Services Pvt. Ltd.

3^rd Floor, Dimension Deepti Plaza,

Pocket-6, 303, Palam Dabri Marg,

Sector-1A, Dwarka,

Nasirpur, New Delhi – 110045.

2. M/s Warranty Asia Pvt. Ltd.

G-11, Plot No. 6,

IP Tower Wazirpur Commercial Complex,

Opp. PF Office,

New Delhi – 110052.

… Opposite Parties

O R D E R

Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member

1. The complainant purchased a phone manufactured by Apple India Pvt. Ltd., Model no. 6(64 GB), having IMEI no. 359285068835265 on 10.06.2015. He paid Rs.58,000/- for the same to Kanahia Watch & Co. The complainant has annexed the copy of the bill issued by the seller dated 10.06.2015 as Annexure C-1.
2. The complainant also got his phone insured with OP-1, who the complainant states is working in collaboration with OP-2. The complainant paid an additional amount of Rs.5,500/- to insure his phone. The complainant has annexed a copy of the bill as Annexure C-2 with the complaint.
3. On 01.09.2015, i.e. within three months of purchase, the complainant's phone was stolen. The complainant lodged the FIR with Police Station Jama Masjid on 08.09.2015 (Annexure C-3) and sent an email dated 09.09.2015 informing OP-2 about his stolen phone. He requested OP-2 to release his insurance amount. OP-2, via email dated 09.09.2015 itself (Annexure C-4),asked for documents to process the complainant's claim and also mentioned an approximate amount that would be sent to him in a few days.
4. Vide email dated 11.09.2015 (Annexure C-5),the complainant asked for clarification regarding the depreciation value of his phone and also sent all the documents requested by OP-2 on 14.12.2016. Thereafter, the complainant waited patiently for the OPs to process his claim and pay his dues, but instead, he received an email dated 04.04.2017 (Annexure C-7) from OP-2 wherein it was stated that due to a dispute with OP-1, OP-2 are no longer liable for the insured amount towards the complainant's phone.
5. Aggrieved by the OPs lackadaisical attitude, the complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. He has prayed for directions to OP-2 to refund the entire amount of Rs.55,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from 04.04.2017 till disposal of the present complaint, and Rs.1,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards harassment. He has additionally sought directions to OP-1 to pay the complainant Rs.50,000/- towards unfair trade practice, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony, Rs.25,000/- towards harassment, alongwith Rs.25,000/- toward litigation cost by both OPs.
6. Notice was issued to the OPs to file their reply. When the complainant filed adequate proof of service qua, the OPs. OP-1 and OP-2 were, proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 10.12.2018. The complainant thus filed his affidavit in evidence but did not file any written arguments.
7. We have carefully gone through the testimony of the complainant filed by way of an affidavit and have also carefully perused the documents proved on record by him. The OPsare Ex-parte and have chosen not to appear before this Forum for reasons best known to them.
8. The complainant purchased an Apple iPhone 6 (64 GB)for Rs.58,000/- from the sellerKanahia Watch & Co. on 10.06.2015 andadditionally paid Rs.5,500/- on the same day to insure his cellphoneoffered by OP-1. OP-2is the Scheme And Claims Administrator as mentioned in Annexure C-2,which is the copy of the 'Value Added Service With Free Handset Insurance'dated 10.06.2015.
9. Unfortunately, the complainant's phone was stolen on 01.09.2015. An FIR was lodged by the complainant on 08.09.2015 at P.S. Jama Masjid. The complainant sent an email to OP-2 requesting OP-2 to process his claim. He also sent the required documents in pursuance of the request made by OP-2 via email dated 09.09.2015, wherein the complainant was asked to keep the claim form duly filled and signed, SIM letter stamped and signed by store and untrace report from the Police ready for OP-2 to collect the same and after that process the claim.
10. The email further mentioned that the payment of Rs.31000/- to Rs.33000/- would be handed over to the complainant via cheque within 25 – 30 working days of sending full documents. A copy of the email is annexed onpage no. 19 of the complaint.
11. The complainant and OP-2 continued to exchange emails thereafter as the complainant was not convinced of the depreciation amount of his phone. Sh. Vivek, an employee of OP-2, sent an email on 04.07.2017 stating therein that he would try to get around 34-35 K, as basic price 48-49 K aprox. Further, cost of accessories were also deducted. The complainant has annexed the email copy on page no. 18 of his complaint (Annexure C-5).
12. Despite the complainant requesting a higher claim amount and waiting for OP-2 to process his claim, the complainant was surprised to receive an email dated 04.07.2017 (Annexure C-7) wherein OP-2 asked the complainant to wait since allegedly OP-1 committed fraud as mentioned in the email annexed at page no. 22 to the complaint.
13. The complainant has also filed the terms and conditions of the insurance policy via which he insured his new phone, which clarifies that the claims for theft and non-repairable within 0 to 90 days as is applicable to the complainant in regardsto the purchase of his cellphone on 10.06.2015 and theft on 01.09.2015. The depreciation rate, as given in the terms and conditions supplied to the complainant in terms of the insurance plan he opted for, is 20%.
14. The complainant has annexed a copy of the Terms and conditions with his complaint to show that his cell phone's depreciation value falls within the 20% range as three months had not expired since he had purchased the cell phone. In the answer to Q4. Compensation & Depreciation Chart for payment? of the Insurance Related FAQs is clarified as below: -

15. In our considered view, the facts and circumstances of the present complaint are clear and supported by the documents filed on record by the complainant. We have no reason to disbelieve the complainant's unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony, duly substantiated with documentary evidence.
16. Hence, in light of the discussion above and since both the OPs are Ex-parte, we find the OPs guilty of deficiency in service and allowing the present complaint direct OP-1 and OP-2 to jointly or severally pay Rs.46,400/- towards the insurance claim alongwith Rs.20,000/- for the mental agony and harassment faced by the complainant and Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to Record Room.
• Announced in the open Court on 20.09.2024.