Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/58/2017

Darshan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Santosh Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Mk Garg

22 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 58 of 2017

                                                     Date of institution : 22.09.2017                                                    

                                                     Date of decision    : 22.05.2018

Darshan Singh aged about 59 years son of Sh. Bachan Singh, resident of Kachha Shanti Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Santosh Telecom, Gaushala Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through Proprietor/Authorized person.
2. UNI-COM INDIA (P) Ltd., SCO-4, Puda Complex, Ladowali Road Jalandhar through its Authorized Person.
3. UNE-COM INDIA (P) Ltd., SCO-7, Second Floor, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh through its Authorized person.

 …..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.               

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                      

  Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        Sh. M.K.Garg, Adv. Cl. for complainant.

                      Opposite parte No. 1 exparte.

                      None for Opposite parties No. 2 & 3.

ORDER

 

By Inder Jit, Member

                      Complainant, Darshan Singh aged about 59 years son of Sh. Bachan Singh, resident of Kachha Shanti Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant purchased a mobile hand set Samsung Galaxy J-7 Prime 32 GB from OP No.1, vide bill NO. 137 dated 27.06.2017 for an amount of Rs.15,900/-. At that time there was insurance scheme, accordingly OP No.1 gave insurance policy of UNI-COM SURAKSHA under the activation code No.PS1705USS02757 and verification code No.18J69DBA29115 valid for the period of 12 months from the date of purchase of said mobile hand set. At the time of purchase of said mobile hand set, OPs No.1,  assured that mobile hand set is of an excellent quality and also promised that best services will be provided to the complainant and also gave guarantee/warrantee of one year.  After 3/4  days from the date of purchase, the display and touch of the mobile hand set in question has been broken. The complainant immediately went to OP No.1 and disclosed regarding the said fact and OP No.1 told to complainant to contact with OP No.2 and provide his proofs to it.  The complainant sent his proof to OP No.2 and OP No.1 assured the complainant that they will solve the problem within one month. Thereafter, the complainant so many times contacted with OP No.2 to solve the problem but OP No.2 remained putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and till today it did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant visited the shop/office of OP No.1 and requested him to return the amount of mobile hand set in question or replace the said mobile with new one but it refused to do so. The complainant also served a legal notice upon the OPs but all in vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund the price of mobile hand set i.e. Rs.15,900/- & further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs, but OP No.1 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte.
4. The complaint is contested by OPs No.2 & 3, who filed joint written reply. In reply to complaint OPs No.2 & 3 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is totally vague, imaginary, hypothetical and ambiguous; the complainant is estopped by his own act, conduct, admission and omission from filing the present complaint;  the complaint is not maintainable under the law and the complainant has no cause of action against OPs No. 2 & 3 for filing the present complaint. As regards the facts of the complaint, OPs No.2 & 3 stated that if there is any claim, the same is to be paid and settled by recognized service centre of Samsung and by the insurance company i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. from where the said mobile was insured.  OP No.2 & 3 deals with the sales of the mobile handsets being a distributor. It is the responsibility of the service centre who are to deal with technical issues/problems of the mobile hand sets. The complainant has not impleded the insurance company and the authorized service centre as party to the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No. 2 & 3. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs No.2 & 3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, true copies of documents i.e. bill Ex. C-2, insurance policy Ex. C-3, legal notice Ex. C-4 , original postal receipts Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence.  The OPs No.2 & 3 failed to tender any evidence despite several opportunities. Hence, the evidence of OPs No. 2 & 3 was closed by order.
6. Ld. counsel for the complainant pleaded that the complainant purchased the Samsung Galaxy J-7 Prime 32 GB mobile from OP No.1 and OP No.1 also provided insurance policy of UNI-COM Suraksha vide activation code No. No.PS1705USS02757 valid for one year. After the purchase of said mobile handset, "the display and touch" of the handset broke and it was immediately reported to OP No.1, who advised the complainant to contact OP No.2 and provide relevant proofs as required by it. The complainant contacted OP No.2 and sent the required proofs etc, but OP No.2 has not done anything till date to settle the problem of the handset in question nor initiated any action to replace the handset inspite of numerous visits and even service of legal notice by the complainant. The Ld. counsel further stated that the handset was also taken to Samsung Service Centre for its repair/rectification etc and the service centre demanded Rs.9,000/- for the said repair. In the end the Ld. counsel for the complainant pleaded for return of price of mobile handset alongwith compensation and litigation charges. OP No.1 did not appear to contest the complaint and hence was proceeded against exparte. OP No.2 & 3 also did not turn up for oral arguments.
7. We have gone through the pleadings, evidence, written submissions alongwith oral arguments addressed by the Ld. counsel for the complainant. From the perusal of record, it is evident that OPs have not adhered to the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy provided to the handset in question at the time of its purchase.  The relevant paras of terms and conditions of the UNI-COM SURAKSHA Insurance policy attached with Ex. C-3 are reproduced hereunder:-

Section 1-Definitioins:

" Proposer Uni-Com India Pvt. Ltd. certified retailers or partners for the benefit of their end consumer, whereby customer opt for protection plan- ' Uni-Com Smart Suraksha' along with the purchase of equipment, only through proposed stores."

INSURER : HDFC ERGO

INSURED :Purchaser of the insured equipment who has opted for 'Uni-Com Smart Suraksha' along with the purchase.

 Section2- The Scope of cover:-

            Provided Insured have purchased equipment from proposer's outlet by opting " Uni-Com Smart Suraksha" at the time of purchase of equipment along with the purchase invoice. The company hereby agrees(subject to terms, conditions, and exclusions herein contained or endorsed or otherwise expressed hereon) to indemnify the insured in respect of the property of the insured against any loss, destruction or damage caused by:

• Accidental physical damage to the insured equipment and/or such damage cause's equipment to stop working.
• Fails to work because accidentally fluid has entered its internal circuitry, resulting into stoppage of the insured equipment.
• Act of God perils, provided that the liability of the company shall in no case exceed the sum insured of the insured gadget. It is also agreed that battery of gadget to be covered if gets damaged under valid accidental damage/Liquid damage claim.

8. In view of above, Insurer is the HDFC ERGO and UNI-COM India Pvt. Ltd. is the certified retailer or partner for the benefit of their end customers. We are of the opinion that OP No.2 has committed deficiency in service. OP No.2 had insured the said mobile handset through OP No.1 under the policy of UNI-COM SURAKSHA for one year and hence OP No.2 is liable to refund the cost of said mobile hand set. Accordingly, we accept this complaint and direct OP No.2 to refund the cost of mobile hand set i.e. Rs.15,900/- The complainant is also held entitled to Rs.3000/- as compensation and litigation charges payable by OP No.2. The order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
9.  The arguments on the complaint were heard on 10.05.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:22.05.2018