SARITA KUMARI filed a consumer case on 31 Jul 2017 against SHIV KRIPA in the West Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/16/614 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Aug 2017.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
150-151, Community Centre C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058
Date of institution: 15.09.2016
Complaint Case. No.614/2016 Date of order: 31.07.2017
IN MATTER OF
SaritaKumari D/O Ran Singh R/O 2087/9C, Flat no.4, Gali no.19, Prem Nagar, Near Patel Nagar, New Delhi Complainant
VERSUS
Shiv Kirpa Enterprises 78, Anand Nagar, Opp. Inderlok Metro Station, Gate no.6, Delhi-10035 Opposite party-1
Apps You Need, YmsMobitechpvt. Ltd. office 123, Block-A, Corenthum Towers, Sector-62, Noida-201301 Opposite party- 2
ORDER
R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT
Brief relevant facts as stated by Ms.SaritaKumari herein after referred as the complainant are that her brother purchased one mobile handset of make and model “Oppo F1 Plus” with IMEI no.869770024494518 from Shiv Kirpa Enterprises herein after referred as theopposite party no.1 for sale considerationRs.27000/-on 05.05.2016. She on the same day insured the mobile handset from apps you need herein after referred as theopposite party no.2 on payment of insurance amount of Rs.2,000/-. The handset was gifted to the complainant by her brother. The mobile handsetwas stolen on 12.07.2016 from her purse. FIR of theftwas lodged at police station SaraiRohilla.The opposite parties no.1 and 2 were also informed. Claim of the mobilewas filed with the opposite party no.2 with all relevant documents. The opposite partiesassured that the claim would be passed within 90 days. But despite the assurances the claim is not passed. The complainant several times visited the opposite party no.1 to enquire status of her claim. They told that it would take some time and providedmobile number ofone Mr.Prince of the opposite party no.2. The complainant talked to the said Prince. Who told to send all relevant documents on whatsapp. The complainant again send all documents to the opposite party no.2 through whatsapp. The opposite party no.2 again promised that the claim will be passed within two months. After two months when the complainant enquired about status ofher claim the opposite party no.2 told that the claim has been rejected on the ground that the FIR is not lodged inthe name of purchaser i.e. complainant’s brother. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to pass the claim and pay Rs.10,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment.
Notices of the complaint were sent to the opposite parties. But despite service none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties. Therefore, the opposite parties were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.12.2016.
When the complainant was asked to lead ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit,she tendered in evidence her affidavit dated 22.12.2016 narrating facts of the complaint. She relied upon copy of invoice dated 05.05.2016, Copy of insurance policy dated 05.05.2016, copy of FIR 13.07.2016 and copy of order of untraced report of concerned Magistrate dated 01.06.2017.
We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.
The version, affidavit of the complainant and documents produced by her have remained unrebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted and unchallenged version and evidence of the complainant. The complainant from the affidavit and documents has been able to show that her brother purchasedone mobile handset of make and model “Oppo F1 Plus” with IMEI no.869770024494518 from the opposite party no.1 for sale consideration Rs.27000/- on 05.05.2016. The mobile handset was insured on 05.05.2016from theopposite party no.2 on premium of Rs.2,000/-. The mobile handset was stolenfrom purse of the complainant, FIR was lodged in SaraiRohillaPolice Station,untraced report was submitted by the SaraiRohillaPolice Station and theIllaqaMagistrate accepted the report. However, there is nothing on the record to show that the complainant submitted claim with theopposite party no.2, except her affidavit. The affidavit of the complainant only is not sufficient to prove that she submitted the claim and the same was declined on the ground that the complaint was not lodged by the registered owner of the mobile handset. Hence there is no cogent and convincing material on record to prove that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.The complaint is premature. Therefore, the complainant is directed to file claim before the opposite party no.2 with all documents within 30 days from receipt of their orderand the opposite party no.2 is directed to decide claim of the complainant thereafter within one month.
The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Order pronounced on :31.07.2017
(PUNEET LAMBA) (R.S. BAGRI) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.