Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/736

Ranjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sachin Gadget World - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

28 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          Complaint No:  736 of 23.12.2015.                                                            Date of Decision: 28.12.2016.

 

Ranjeet Singh S/o. Phali Singh, R/o. Street No.3, New Mahadev Nagar, Lohara, Ludhiana.                                                                     ..… Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Sachin Gadet World Pvt. Limited, 330-A, Ishmeet Chowk, Model Town Extn, Ludhiana through its Authorized/Proprietor/Managing Director.
2. S.S. Communication 6688/8, Harcharan Nagar, Opp. Corporation Zone-B, behind Shingar Cinema, Ludhiana.
3. The Appsdaily through UB Insurance Associates Apps-Mobile Claims division S 204/205, Suraj Plaza, 196/8, 25^th Cross, 8^th F Main Jayangar 3^rd Block, Bangalore 560011 through its Authorized signatory.

…..Opposite parties 

                                      Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Rakesh Kumar, authorized representative.

For OPs                         :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by complainant by pleading that he purchased one mobile hand set ELUGA S Panasonic from OP1 and insurance cover for the said Panasonic mobile phone was provided by OP2. This purchase was made on 14.01.2015 for consideration of Rs.10,700/-, but insurance charges of Rs.999/- in excess of the price was also charged from the complainant. Invoice No.01302 dated 14.01.2015 regarding the purchase, but invoice No.01303 dated 14.01.2015 for insurance charges were issued. At the time of purchase, it was assured by OP2 that in case any problem exists in the mobile, then OP2 being fully equipped service centre will solve the problem. 7/8 months after purchase of the mobile, the mobile stood broken while getting down from the bus. The mobile was completely spoiled and became dead. Complainant approached OP3 and they disclosed that complainant can file complaint for insurance claim on their website Appsdailyclaims. Thereafter said company sent a mail id on email of complainant and disclosed that complaint has been registered with intimation No.AD_D_010915_2726617. The complainant was advised to visit the service centre i.e. OP2. It was also disclosed that the company has sent approval letter to complainant. On 02.09.2015, the company called upon complainant to visit service centre with documentary proof regarding breakage of the screen of mobile. It is claimed that damages and breakages are covered by the warranty under insurance cover owing to payment of extra charges by complainant. Complainant was disclosed that his mobile set will be retained in service centre for some time and thereafter will be handed over to dealer. It is claimed that dealer has changed the parts of the mobile and thereafter the mobile is not working properly. Screen of the mobile is not genuine because Panasonic company disclosed that the changed parts are not original owing to non bearing of stamp of Panasonic on changed parts. After repeated requests, Ops changed the mobile and complainant thereafter was harassed and humiliated by calling upon to pay Rs.750/-.  No receipt was handed over to the complainant for charges for change of the said parts of mobile phone. Guarantee period was going to expire on 14.01.2016. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to pay damages of Rs.20,000/- to complainant for mental agony and harassment. In the alternative such other relief as this Forum deems fit is claimed.

2.                Ops are exparte in this case.

3.                Complainant in exparte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex. CA of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, authorized representative along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C20 and then representative of complainant closed exparte evidence.

4.                Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and record gone through carefully.

5.                Invoice Ex. C1 establishes that mobile set in question was purchased by complainant Ranjeet Singh from OP1 on 14.01.2015 for consideration of  Rs.10,700/-. Ex. C4 is the invoice No.01303 dated 14.01.2015 establishing as if said mobile was insured on payment of premium of Rs.999/-. So certainly case of complainant proved that the mobile in question was got insured by him with OP3 on payment of premium w.e.f. 14.01.2015.

6.                Ex. C2 is the job sheet showing that mobile phone in question submitted with service centre i.e. OP2 on 08.09.2015 for repairing fault of touch + display. Ex. C3 the correspondence dated 04.12.2015 establishes that due response to the complaint of complainant was given by Panasonic Service Centre by disclosing that he can contact on toll free number and should share the particulars of the job sheet and IMEI number for better assistance. Ex. C5 email correspondence establishes that authorized service centres to provide cashless service with respect to the insured mobile in respect of repairs of hand set not covered by the manufacturer’s warranty. Vide Ex. C5, complainant was called upon to visit OP2 for redressal of his greivance. Ex. C6 just shows as if three attachments were there with correspondence Ex. C5. Vide Ex. C7, it was informed that at the basis of the scanned documents submitted in respect of mobile set in question, insurance company estimated amount at Rs.3,350/-, but finalization of the same was to take place on submission of the original documents along with repair bill cum receipt with paid stamp on it and all replaced parts/components (as mentioned in the estimate). Documents required were Form 1C and 2C, Form 3C with customer bank detail, photostat copy of original purchase invoice, self attested copy of customer ID proof, photographs of damaged hand set clearly showing extent of damage, repair estimate, repair bill, claim approval mail and IMEI number etc.  Vide Ex. C8, complainant was informed that in case he has any issues regarding service provided by service centre or regarding delays in repair, then complainant should approach the hand set brand company.  Ex. C2 and Ex. C9 is one and the same thing. Vide Ex. C10, complainant lodged protest by claiming that retention of phone for 10 days by service centre is improper and he sought written statement explaining company’s position as to what will be done with respect to his complaint. Email letter Ex. C11 of 30.10.2015 is on the same line as is letter Ex. C3, vide which complainant was required to share the job sheet and IMEI number for better assistance with authorized service centre. Vide Ex. C12, complainant claimed that he is not satisfied with the service of service centre because display was not genuine and he is facing some problems and as such, payment should be stopped with respect to claim No.AD_D_010915_2726617. In response to Ex. C12 of date 20.10.2015, complainant was informed through email Ex. C13 dated 31.10.2015 that he should contact the service centre if he is not satisfied with the report of the hand set work. However, through Ex. C14 complainant claimed that the repair of hand set is not up to mark. Virtually Ex. C13 and Ex. C14 is one and the same thing. Vide Ex. C15, it was informed to the complainant that despite contact on his mobile, response was not received from complainant and as such alternate number should be provided to OP3. Vide Ex. C16, complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the provided services by service centre and called upon insurer to stop payment. Ex. C17 and Ex. C4 is one and the same thing. Ex. C19 and Ex. C20 contains the terms and conditions and scope of insurance warranty.

7.                Even if the complainant has called upon OP3 to stop payment, despite that it is to be kept in mind that he was not satisfied with the services provided by the service centre i.e. OP2. Repair of the mobile sought within warranty period is also a fact borne from the above referred documentary evidence.  A person paying premium to insurance company definitely will expect due service from the service provider and as such, complainant being not satisfied with the service of OP2, duly called upon the insurer i.e. OP3, to stop payment. So fault lay with OP1 and OP2 in not duly repairing the mobile phone in question. In such circumstances appropriate relief will be to call upon OP1 and OP2 to replace the mobile set in question with new one of worth equal to Rs.10,700/- and that has already been done by change of mobile  by OP2 as disclosed by complainant in para No.6 of the affidavit Ex. CA as well as by para No.6 of the complaint itself. If complainant was asked to pay Rs.750/- without issue of receipt, then deficiency in service is to that extent only. That charging of Rs.750/- done by OP2 without issue of receipt as per claim put forth through the complaint and para no.6 of affidavit Ex. CA and as such, responsibility of this refund of charged amount of Rs.750/- without receipt, will be of OP2 only.

8.                It is admitted by complainant himself in para no.6 of affidavit Ex. CA that guarantee is going to expire on 14.01.2016, but the complaint filed on 23.12.2015 and as such, complaint is filed within limitation. As OP2 changed hand set and even took steps for getting the insurance claim processed as revealed by the above produced documents and as such, deficiency in service is only to the extent of charging Rs.750/-, but without issue of slip and not more than that.

9.                As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP2 will refund the charged amount of Rs.750/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which he will pay interest @8% per annum on this amount of Rs.750/- from the date of filing of the complaint namely 23.12.2015 till payment. On account of meager harassment caused to complainant, compensation for mental harassment of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) more allowed. Payment of these amounts will be made by OP2 only because that amount was accepted by OP2. Payment of these amounts of harassment and litigation expenses be also made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, complaint against remaining Ops is dismissed for want of cause of action against them. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

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

                                       Member                                            President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:28.12.2016.

Gobind Ram.