Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1118/2014

DHEERAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

16 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 1118/14

 

Shri Dheeraj Grover

S/o Shri Amrut Ray Grover

R/o 425A, Jheel Kuranja

Scooter Market, Near Bank of Barods

Krishan Nagar, Delhi – 110 051                        ….Complainant

Vs.    

1. Spice Retail Ltd.

A-120, Vikas Marg

Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092

2. Maa Vaishnavi Services

U-157, 1^st Floor, Shakarpur

Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar,

Metro Station Gate No. 3

Delhi – 110 092

3. Gadget Cops

A-83, Seftor-2

Noida – 201 301, UP

4. New India Insurance Co.

87, M.G. Road, Fort,

Mumbai – 400 001

5. Samsung India Pvt. Ltd.

7^th-8^th Floor, IFCI Tower

61, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19                               …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 03.12.2014

Judgement Reserved on: 16.04.2018

Judgement Passed on: 17.04.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Dheeraj Grover against Spice Retail Ltd. (OP-1), Maa Vaishnavi Services (OP-2), Gadget Cops (OP-3), New India Insurance Co. (OP-4) and Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-5) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant purchased a Samsung mobile from Spice Retail Ltd, (OP-1), authorized dealer of Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-5) on 13.04.2014 for a sum of Rs. 15,949/- which was insured with New India Insurance Company (OP-4).  In the month of July, 2014, the screen of the mobile got damaged for which complainant visited at the service centre of respondent and deposited his mobile vide claim no. 4178374683.  Service centre refused to repair the mobile and asked for deposit the set with Gadget Cops (OP-3).

            On the call of complainant, executive of OP-3 visited the house of the complainant and received the set.  Executive of OP-3 demanded a sum of Rs. 1,250/- on which complainant asked him that his mobile was fully insured.  He clearly refused to receive the mobile.  Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,250/- to the executive vide invoice no. 7997 dated 24.09.2014.  Complainant was assured that his mobile will be returned within 10-15 days, however, he was shocked when he received his set by courier on 17.10.2014 and on checking, he came to know that the screen of the mobile was damaged which was in the same situation. 

            He made a call to the respondent, but did not get any satisfactory reply.  Thus, he has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  He has claimed the cost of mobile of Rs. 16,449/-; Rs. 50,000/- compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 15,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.         In the reply filed on behalf of New India Insurance Co. (OP-4), they have taken the plea that the insurance was limited to theft and burglary risks only and the complainant’s claim of repairs was not covered under the insurance policy.  They have denied other facts also.

4.         Rejoinder to the WS of OP-4 was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of his complaint.

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  He also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  

            New India Insurance Company (OP-4) have examined Mrs. Kavita Jain, Authorized Representative of OP, who have deposed on affidavit and reiterated the contents of the reply.  She has also got exhibited the insurance policy as Exhibit OP-4/1.

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for New India Insurance Company, however, complainant did not put the appearance to argue.  It has been argued on behalf of insurance company that the claim of the complainant was not made out against them as the insurance policy was only in respect of theft and burglary.  Since the complainant have not appeared to argue, we have perused the material placed on record such as evidence of the complainant coupled with documents.

            If a look is made to the insurance policy which has been placed on behalf of New India Insurance Company, it is noticed that the insurance for mobile handset were covered against theft and burglary risks.  The fact that claim of the complainant has been in respect of damage, the insurance company cannot be held liable for this.  Not only that, from the evidence on record, it is also noticed that the handset was out of warranty.  When the handset was out of warranty, no deficiency can be attributed to other OPs.

            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to attribute any deficiency on the part of OPs.  Hence, the present complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President