Case filed on : 16.10.2017
Judgment : Dt.19.2.2018
Mr. Ayan Sinha, Member
This is a complaint under Section12 of C.P.Act, 1986 as amended uptodate, by one Abhishek Kumar, son of Sri Bharat Bhusan Paswan of Kharki Khudirabad, Ramkishna Park, PS- Sonarpur, South 24-Parganas, Kolkata-700 150 against Solutions, 102, Shyama Prosad Mukherjee Road, P.S.-Tollygunge, Kolkata-700 026 (OP No.1) and Assist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., P.O. Box No.7417, J.B.Nagar Post Office, Mumbai-400 059 (OP No.2), praying for direction upon the OPs to return Rs.14,500/-, replace the old one i.e. excess amount charged alongwith interest 18%p.a., to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.500/- for litigation cost.
Facts in brief are that Complainant is the buyer and the OP No.1 is the seller and OP No.2 is the Insurance Co. The Complainant purchased a mobile phone namely Mi MAX 4G (3GB) from the shop of the OP No.1 on 8.11.2016 for Rs.14,500/- and made an insurance by paying a sum of Rs.1,399/- through OP No.2 for the said mobile on 8.11.2016.
The Complainant’s mobile was stolen on 17.9.2017 during NCC Training Camp at L.S.College, Muzaffarpur against which a written complaint to University P.S. was lodged and the same was informed to shopowner and insurance regarding this.
The Complainant alongwith Cash Memo, insurance memo and the complaint lodged in P.S. claims to the Insurance for costs. Thereafter on 16.10.2017, Complainant filed this case.
Notices were served to both OPs but the OPs did not appear by filing written version and so the case was finally heard ex-parte against OPs vide Order No.6 dt.16.1.2018.
Complainant filed a petition praying for treating petition of complaint as affidavit-in-chief. In this regard, the Complainant has also filed a petition due to his educational training of NCC, he has appointed his uncle Sri Himanshu Paswan to sign all related papers and legal steps for this case.
Main point for decisions is to
- Whether Complainant is a consumer?
- Whether this is a deficiency of service by OPs?
- Whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for
Decision with reasons
On perusal of the documents, it appears that Complainant had purchased one mobile Mi Max 4G (3GB) with IME No.86106703098992 from OP No.1 for Rs.14,500/- vide Tax Invoice No.51588 dt.8.11.2016. In this regard, the original tax invoice has been filed by Complainant. The Complainant has filed one more original Tax Invoice No.51589 dt.8.11.2016 for Rs.1,399/- issued by OP No.1 which reveals that he has purchased an insurance coverage issued by OP No.2 through OP No.1 named ONE ASSIST, and so the Complainant is a consumer.
The Complainant has also filed original Insurance with application Card No.MP594807 which clearly reveals that this coverage will have a validity of 365 days from activation. It also appears in the Insurance Coverage Card that the Handset theft Insurance is covered for Handset ranging from Rs.10,001/- to Rs.15,000/- along with other converges, mentioned in the said card and the sum is assured on invoice value, as such the Complainant’s mobile falls under this coverage since the price of the mobile is Rs.14,500/-.
A copy of written complaint lodged in University P.S. – Muzaffarpur by the Complainant has also been filed from where it appears that Complainant has mentioned the same IMEI No.86106703098992 that mobile is lost. He has also communicated to Service provider for barring his sim from any calls. The Complainant has also filed one e-mail communication between Complainant and Insurance Co. ONE ASSIST has been filed which reveals that OP No.2 denied his service request No.2356935 dt.1.10.2017 and the matter is closed since Complainant is under age.
Now, the question remains at the time of selling the product, the OPs have not considered these facts and when the Complainant has lost his mobile which was covered under insurance by OP No.2 simply denied by saying under age. So, we hold that there is certainly a deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
After going through all the records and original documents filed by Complainant, it appears that Complainant is entitled to the reliefs.
The Complainant has also prayed for a compensation of Rs.15,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- which is exaggerated.
In our view, if a direction upon OPs be given to refund Rs.14,500/- which is the actual amount of the Handset along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.500/- as litigation cost, justice would be served.
Hence,
ordered
CC/583/2017 and the same is allowed ex-parte in part.
The OPs are directed to pay Rs.14,500/- to the Complainant within one month along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. In default, the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till full realization. The liabilities of OPs are joint and several.
