Haryana

Ambala

CC/300/2016

Sandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Pvt ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

K.C. Jain

20 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 300 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         : 01.08.2016

                                                          Date of decision   : 20.03.2018

 

Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh. Kewal Kumar, R/o Railway Fatak 127, new village, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 20^th to 24^th floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course  Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122202 through its Managing Director/Authorised signatory.

2.       Samsung Mobiles Authorised Service Centre, Adjourning Gurudwara, Prem Nagar, Ambala City, through its Authorised signatory.

3.       Dashing Mobile World, Opp. Indian Bank, Near Jagadhari Gate, Ambala City, through its proprietor/Authorised signatory.

4.       Syska Insurance, Syska Gadget Secure, Leehan Retails Pvt Ltd, 4 SSK Saphire Plaza, Pune Airport Road, Near Symbiosis College, Pune-411014.

5.       New India Assurance Company Ltd. Registered office 87, Ground Flour, M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

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

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.                           

 

Present:       Sh. K.C.Jain, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, counsel for the OP Nos. 1 & 2.

OP No.3 proceeded ex parte v.o.d.06.03.2017.

Sh. Sandeep Kashyap, counsel for OP No.4.

Sh. Mohinder Bindal, counsel for OP No.5.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a Samsung Galaxy E-7, White bearing IMEI Nos. 358185106165883117 & 358186106165883115 of Rs. 17,000/- from the OP No.3 vide invoice no.5491 dated 19.08.2015 and believe on the assurance of OP No.3 the complainant also got insured the above said mobile phone with OP No.4 and also paid Rs. 1500/- for the same to the OP No.3 for OP No.4. On 30.11.2015 the complainant met with an minor accident and the mobile of the complainant was fell down from his pocket  and was got damaged and thereafter on 02.12.2015  he contacted with the OP No.3 and the OP No.3  adviced to the complainant to contact  with the OP No.  Thereafter, on 05.12.2015 the complainant contacted with the OP No.2  and employees of the OP No.2 advice the complainant to come after a week. The complainant again after a week contacted with the OP No.2 and told the complainant that his mobile phone has been sent to Delhi for repair and the same will take a month in getting the phone repaired from the Delhi. The complainant many a times has contacted with the respondent no.2 but the mobile phone of the complainant neither has been repaired nor replaced with the new phone by the OP No.2. Thereafter on 01.06.2016 the mobile phone of the complainant was returned to the complainant without repairing the same by the OP No.2 and advised the complainant that his phone will be replaced/refunded by the OP NO.3. The complainant contacted with OP No.3 and advised   the complainant to wait for a week for replaced /refunded the mobile with a new one. Again, the complainant many a times has visited the op No.3 but every time the matter has been postponed by the OP No.3 on one pretext or the other & he is not able to used his mobile phone since 30.11.2015. In this way, the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss, mental agony & harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notice issued to Op No.3 but none has turned up on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.03.2017. Upon notice, OP Nos.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable, not come with clean hands, no jurisdiction & true and material facts. On merits, OP Nos. 1 & 2 stated that the OP No.3 is not the authorized dealer of the company so any act on the part of the OP No.3. The complainant in regards to his complaint regarding the mobile has approached  the service centre  first time on 21.07.2016 with the problem that the LCD of Mobile phone was damage and the engineer of the company checked the mobile and given estimate to the complainant & the complainant refused to repair the mobile set as the same was insured with OP No.4. As per the company policy the company gives one year warranty to his/her consumer i.e. first purchaser  on the unit warranty means in case of any problem with the unit the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per company policy. Infact the company provides warranty of one year to his/her consumer but the warranty of the unit(warranty means only repair nor replacement) is subject to some condition and the warranty of the unit becomes void in the following conditions:-

1. Liquid Logged/water logging  

2. Physically damage 

3. Serial no. missing  

 4. Tampering    

5. Mishandling/ Burnt etc.

 

It is also submitted that the Ops were are still ready to repair the unit as per company policy.

                    On merits, OP No. 4 stated that the policy documents clearly show that claimant shall provide some documents to the OP No.4. But in this case the documents requested by the OP No.4 from the customer but the customer never bother to provide the documents till today which is mandatory for processing the claim. And, it is also mandatory after intimation regarding incident, the documents should be provided  in 30 days. Otherwise the claim shall automatically close. And intimation should be provided by the customer in 48 hours from the incident time. He further stated that the policy cover booklet is issued to the customer with insurance kit and all term was also accepted by the customer at the time of purchasing the insurance scheme.

On merits, OP No.5 stated that the alleged insurance policy entered into with Syska was subject to certain terms and conditions wherein  the insured was liable to give intimation of loss within 48 hours of the loss and to submit papers with proof of occurrence within a specified period of 30 days positively but as per the reply filed by the OP No.4, the  complainant has never  submitted the required papers so his claim was never forwarded and entertained. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of Ops and prayed to dismissal of the present complaint.

 

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X with documents as annexure C-1 to C-4 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP Nos.1 & 2 tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A alongwith document Annexure R-1 and close their evidence. Counsel for the OP No.4 has also tendered documents as Annexure R-2 and closed his evidence. Counsel for OP No.5 tendered affidavit as Annexure R-B & close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for the both the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased the mobile set of Samsung Galaxy E-7, White vide Bill no. 5791 dated 19.08.2015 for Rs. 17,000/- from OP No.3 (Annexure C-1) with the one year warranty which was insured with OP No.4. It is proved on the file that the insurance amount has been paid to the dealer of Rs. 1,500/- vide Annexure C-2 which was to be paid by the dealer to the Syska Gadget Secure i.e. OP No.4.  It is also not disputed the mobile in question has been become physically damage within warranty period. The complainant approached to the OP No.2/service centre for rectification of the mobile in question who gave the estimate of Rs. 15,620/- for repairing charges of the defective parts but complainant refused to get the same repaired on payment basis. The OP No.1 has come with the plea that the warranty become void as the LCD/Screen of mobile in question was damaged which occurred due to fault of the customer and the complainant has to bear the estimated cost for repairing but it is strange that as to why he has reached at the conclusion that the warranty of the product in question has expired. Rather, the act of the OP No.1,2 & 4 shows that they are intentionally avoiding to provide  after sale service to the complainant. 

6.                We have gone through the Annexure R-2 which was provided by the OP No.4  i.e copy of booklet of terms and conditions of the insurance policy which is clearly mentioned that “ There’s a lot more on offer: Get a complete insurance cover for your phone against accidental damages, water/fluid damage, theft, burglary and fire damage”. The OP No.4 has denied qua receiving requisite documents related to mobile in question from the complainant.

The OP No.5 alleged that insured was bound to give intimation of loss within 48 hours of the loss and to submit required papers with proof of occurrence within a specified period of 30 days positively but the complainant has never submitted the required papers so his claim was never forwarded and entertained.  But it is proved on the file that the complainant has also sent/fill the damage claim form to the OP No. 4 on 01.12.2015 vide Annexure C-4 & Annexure C-5 but  OP Nos. 4 & 5 failed to send any reply of the application and also denied the receiving the documents in his written statement.

7.                In view of the above terms and conditions of the abovesaid insurance policy as per Annexure R-2,  OP Nos. 4 & 5 are duty bound to refund the cost of the mobile in question whenever they have received the insurance amount from the complainant through dealer i.e. OP No.2. It is unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Nos.4 & 5. It was obligatory on the OP Nos. 4 & 5 to indemnify the claim lodged qua the insured mobile. OP Nos.4 & 5 have not indemnified the loss of the complainant which is tantamount to deficient in service on the part of insurance company i.e. OP Nos.4 & 5.

8.                In view of the above discussion we are confirmed view the complainant has proved his case that his mobile has been  physically damage at the time of the occurrence on 24.03.2016. Hence, the present complaint is  allowed with cost against OP Nos.4 and 5 and they are directed to pay the invoice/insured  amount Rs. 17,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till realization. Cost is assessed Rs. 3000/-. 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 : 20.03.2018   

                               

 

 

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

Member                             Member                           President