Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/692/2014

Pritam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Pvt. ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

20 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/692/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	20/10/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	20/08/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Pritam Singh, resident of House No.1329-A, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   Sony India Pvt. Limited, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

 

2.   The New India Assurance Co. Limited, Divisional Office: 350200, SCO 104-106, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

3.   Anubhav Enterprises, SCO 1016, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

4.   Modern AKM Electronics Pvt. Limited, SCO 126-127 & 144-145, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh–160022.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OPs No.1, 3 & 4	:	Ex-parte.
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Rajesh K. Sharma, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased one Sony Xperia C2004 mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3 on 31.05.2014 for Rs.11,500/-, with 12 months warranty. In addition, the Complainant had also purchased an insurance policy of Opposite Party No.2 to cover the risks of accidental damage, water damage, theft and mechanical fault to the handset in question by paying an amount of Rs.1299/-. It has been averred that on 26.08.2014, the handset in question encountered a battery charging problem and was taken to Opposite Party No.4, who after retaining the handset for inspection, intimated on 29.08.2014 that the Micro USB Holder and USB connector of the handset were damaged/broken which were not covered in the warranty and an estimate of Rs.1336/- was given to the Complainant if he wanted to get the his handset repaired. It has been alleged that the Complainant thereafter approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 29.8.2014 to depute a Surveyor for processing his insurance claim, but the Opposite Party No.2 straightaway denied his claim. Ultimately,                 on 03.09.2014, the Complainant had to get his                handset repaired from Opposite Party No.4 after paying Rs.1250/-. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties No.1, 3 and 4 were duly served through registered post but despite due service they failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

4.     Opposite Party No.2 in its written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that the insurance policy is subject to the terms & conditions as mentioned in the insurance policy document. It has been asserted that the Complainant has not lodged the claim with the answering Opposite Party and as such there is no cause of action in his favour and the Complaint filed by the Complainant is premature. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.     The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.2.

 

6.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

7.     We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and have perused the record along with the written arguments/synopsis filed on behalf of the parties. 

 

8.     After having scanned the entire material placed below us, we are of the concerted view that the damaged/ broken USB holder and USB connecter is a mechanical fault which is covered under the insurance policy. Section 2 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which deals with ‘Scope of Cover’ (Page No.27 of the paper book), runs as under:-

 

“Section 2: Scope of Cover

 

 

Provided beneficiary have purchased the equipment from the insured medium, whereby in Insured have advised to Insurer about the purchase & paid appropriate premium and issued purchase invoice along with hand out to the purchaser through their medium. Insurer in the event of following occurrence to the Insured Equipment will approve for repair or replace equipment with same or similar equipment or at their option, will arrange for payment if the equipment: -

 

1.Suffers accidental physical damage to the Insured Equipment and/or such damage cause’s equipment to stop working.

 

2.Burglary including theft and housebreaking.

 

3.Stolen from a locked building/room/vehicle.

 

4.Fire, lightening and explosion.

 

5.Act of God perils.

 

6.Damage or theft during riot, strike & malicious damage.”

 

 

9.     Furthermore, even on the perusal of the documents placed at Page Nos.23 to 25, one can easily notice that it covers mechanical fault also, in addition to accidental damage, water damage and theft. It is also seen from Annexure C-8 (Page Nos. 35 and 37) that the Complainant has made frantic efforts to contact the Opposite Party No.2 on 29.8.2014, 30.8.2014, 1.9.2014 and 2.9.2014, respectively, but there was no satisfactory response from the side of Opposite Party No.2. In these set of circumstances, we hold the Opposite Party No.2 guilty of rendering deficient services to the Complainant, which certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment to him. 

 

10.     In the light of above observations, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party No.2 is deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.2, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to:-

[a]  To reimburse the amount of Rs.1250/- paid by the Complainant to Opposite Party No.4;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.7,500/- as costs of litigation.

 

         The Complaint fails against Opposite Parties No.1, 3 & 4.

 

11.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.2; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [c] above. 

 

12.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

20^th August, 2015                             

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER