BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint no. 265 of 2016.
Date of Institution: 30.9.2016.
Date of Decision: 8.5.2017
Gurbachan Singh aged about 54 years son of Shri Diwan Singh, resident of Suratgarhia Bazaar, Gurudwara Street, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Shakti Electronics, Sadar Bazaar Sirsa, through its proprietor.
2. The Incharge/ Authorized Officer, Appsdaily Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Sirsa, District Sirsa near Chandan Cake House, Sirsa.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Samsung Head Quarter, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. RAGHBIR SINGH…………………PRESIDENT.
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ……………………MEMBER.
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sunny Babber, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Opposite parties No.1 & 2 already exparte.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that he had purchased a new mobile handset Samsung from op no.1 vide bill No.16891 dated 3.8.2015 for a sum of Rs.17400/-. On the same day, on the advice of op no.1, the complainant got his mobile insured with op no.2 and paid sufficient amount qua the insurance charges for all risks to the mobile in question. In the month of June, 2016, the handset of the complainant got physical damage. As the damage was caused to its display and as the mobile was under the period of insurance, he immediately informed the op no.2 about the same. The op no.2 took the mobile from the complainant and issued job sheet dated 22.6.2016 in this regard to the complainant with the promise that within a period of one week, the said mobile shall be repaired or replaced. It is further averred that an amount of Rs.500/- was demanded from complainant on account of repair charges. The complainant refused to pay the same because mobile was still under the period of insurance but op no.2 refused even to touch the mobile without payment of Rs.500/-. Therefore, he had deposited the amount of Rs.500/- with op no.2 under protest. It is further averred that about three months have passed but neither the delivery of mobile has been given nor any other response has been received by complainant from the side of op no.2 inspite of repeated telephonic calls as well as personal visits made by complainant. It is further averred that about two days before issuance of notice, when complainant again visited the office op no.2 for getting delivery of mobile, it was disclosed to him that the display of the mobile has been replaced but op no.2 demanded a sum of Rs.4500/- from the complainant on account of replacement of display and flatly refused to hand over the mobile without payment and since then mobile is lying with op no.2. That thereafter on 3.9.2016, the complainant sent a registered legal notice to the op no.2 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 and as such, ops no.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite party no.3 appeared and in its reply while taking certain preliminary objections has asserted that alleged unit was got repaired through M/s Mobile World i.e. Service Centre of the company on 7.9.2016 vide call no.4221105001 as per conditions of warranty. No cause of action has arisen against the answering op. company as the unit of the complainant was got repaired. It is also submitted that there is no privity of contract between the answering op company and insurance company and only insurance company i.e. op no.2 is responsible. The answering op was/is still ready to repair the unit as per company policy.
4. In evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of job sheet Ex.C2, legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4 and registered cover Ex.C5. On the other hand, op no.3 produced affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of warranty card Ex.R2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. It is established on record that complainant purchased the mobile in question from op no.1 on 3.8.2015 for a sum of Rs.17,400/- as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C1. It has also come on record that on the same day, the complainant got insured his said mobile from opposite party no.2 as the said fact is proved from the copy of job sheet dated 22.6.2016 issued by Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The said mobile in question was delivered to op no.2 for repair on 22.6.2016 as its display was damaged. When the op no.2 has insured the mobile of the complainant with it, therefore, it was liable to repair the same without charging any amount from the complainant but at the time of depositing of mobile with it by complainant, it charged an amount of Rs.500/- from the complainant and then failed to deliver the mobile in question to the complainant after repair after such a long period. The op no.2 has failed to justify its further demand of Rs.4500/- from the complainant in lieu of repair of the mobile in question as alleged by the complainant despite the fact that mobile in question of the complainant was insured by it for all risks including physical damage. The contentions put forth by the complainant against the op no.2 remained unrebutted and unchallenged as op no.2 failed to appear before this Forum and opted to remain exparte. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, no liability of any type of ops no.1 and 3 is made out.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua op no.2 and direct the opposite party no.2 to deliver the mobile in question to the complainant in proper and working condition specially with replacement of display without charging any amount from the complainant and also to refund amount of Rs.500/- charged from the complainant. We also direct op no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses. This order should be complied by the op no.2 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.2500/- from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 30.9.2016 till actual realization besides delivery of mobile. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
President,
Dated: 8.5.2017 Member Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
