Delhi

East Delhi

CC/72/2017

NAYANTARA SHETTY - Complainant(s)

Versus

SPICE RETAIL - Opp.Party(s)

15 Oct 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 72/17

 

Ms. Nayantara Shetty

W/o Shri P.S. Shetty

1101/21, Heritage City

M.G. Road, Gurugram – 122 002                                ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. M/s. Spice Retail Ltd.

D-60, Main Vikas Marg

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi         

 

2. Officer In-charge

M/s. Oneassit Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Post Box no. 7417

Acne Plaza, Andheri-Kurla Road

Andheri East, J.B. Nagar Post Office

Mumbai – 400 059                                                         …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 16.02.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 15.10.2019

Judgement Passed on: 22.10.2019

 

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

           This complaint has been filed by Ms. Nayantara Shetty against    M/s. Spice Retail Ltd. (OP-1) and M/s. Oneassit Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased one mobile handset ‘Huawei Che1-L04’ vide invoice no. 10515378 dated 11.07.2016 from OP-1 in her name through her husband/AR by paying an amount of Rs. 9,999/-.  Insurance policy for the above mobile was taken from OP-2 vide invoice no. 100773489 dated 11.07.2016 by paying premium amount of Rs. 1,549/-. 

           It was stated that the mobile with Sim card no. 9911150051 was stolen from the pocket of complainant’s husband on 30.09.2016 at about 10.30 a.m. at D.C. Office, Kapasera, New Delhi for which online complaint was lodged in his name vide LR No. 933458/2016 on 30.09.2016 at 11.18 hours at cyber café as he was under the impression that the handset was purchased in his name.  When he came to know about the mistake, he again lodged complaint vide FIR LR No. 936324/2016 on 01.10.2016 at 9.59 a.m. 

           It was also stated that when husband of the complainant visited the show room of OP-1 to report the loss of mobile handset and submit the insurance claim, he was told that there was error in the FIR i.e. instead of reporting the loss of mobile handset, it was stated the loss of Sim card no. 9911150051 and asked him to get the correct copy of FIR alongwith other documents.  Husband of the complainant visited the show room of OP-1 on 03.10.2016 for submitting the claim alongwith required documents like original invoice for phone as well as insurance policy and intimation about the correction in FIR, but they refused to accept the claim documents and made the husband of the complainant to talk to the person in-charge of receiving the claim in the office of OP-2 in Mumbai who also refused to accept the same stating that there was delay in reporting the matter to them.

           Letter /Legal notice dated 07.10.2016 and 18.01.2017 were sent to OPs which were neither replied nor complied.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OPs to refund the cost of mobile i.e. Rs. 9,999/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.; Rs. 1,100/- being the charges for legal notice;      Rs. 2,000/- being the charges incurred for visit to the office of OP-1 and postage etc. and Rs. 10,000/- compensation on account of mental torture and harassment. 

3.        In reply filed on behalf of OP-1, they have taken various pleas such as they were only the retailer and deals in sale of the mobile phones; the complaint did not disclose any cause of action against them and the said complaint attracts the “RULE of CAVEAT EMPTOR”.  According to this principle, the buyer must take care of his own interest while purchasing the goods.  Other facts have also been denied.

In reply filed on behalf of OP-2, they have stated that this forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and there was no deficiency in service.  It was stated that they were service provider who arranged the insurance of mobile handet through National Insurance Company and thus acted as the facilitator in registering and processing the claim.  It was also stated that there was delay on the part of the complainant to report the loss of mobile phone to OP.  According to terms and conditions of the insurance plan, the loss of handset was required to be reported within 48 hours of discovering the theft and submit the original documents within 7 days of registration of claim for onward submission to insurance company. 

It was stated that as per clause (v) of Anti Theft feature of the plan “in the event that the customer’s mobile phone is lost/stolen, the customer must inform One Assist immediately in order for One Assist to track the mobile phone and alert the customer on an alternate number in the event that a third party puts a different SIM card into the Mobile Phone.”  Other facts have also been denied.    

4.        Complainant have filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-1 and OP-2, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.        In support of its case, the complainant have examined herself.  She has deposed on affidavit.  She has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  She has also got exhibited copy of authority letter (Ex.-1), copy of invoice no. 10515378 dated 11.07.2016 (Ex.-2), invoice no. 100773489 dated 11.07.2016 (Ex.-3), copy of email (Ex.-4), copy of complaint LR No. 933458/2016 dated 30.09.2016 (Ex.-5), FIR LR No. 936324.2016 dated 01.10.2016 (Ex.-6), copy of claim for (Ex.-7),              re-corrected and final FIR no. 957821/2016 dated 07.10.2016 (Ex.-8), copy of legal notice and its postal receipts (Ex.-9) and copy of email message (Ex.-10).

           In defence, OP-1 have examined Shri Ramesh Kumar, AR of OP-1, who has deposed on affidavit.   He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS. 

           OP-2 have examined Shri Sachin Jha, working for OP-2, who has also deposed on affidavit.   He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.  He has got exhibited copy of terms and conditions of the policy (Ex.-A).

6.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  The complainant is aggrieved by non settlement of her claim, despite the fact her handset was insured.  The handset was covered under protection plan is an admitted fact, factum of theft is also not disputed.  The claim of complainant was rejected by OP-2 on the ground of delay in intimation.  If we look at Ex.5, when is e-FIR of the even date of incident of theft, complainant has set the state machinery into motion by registering FIR.  The delay has been adequately explained by the complainant.  Rejection of claim on account of delay by 4 days is merely technical. 

           It is settled principle of law that the claim cannot be rejected on technical ground.  The non settlement of claim by OP-2 on the ground of delay, which has been adequately explained amounts to deficiency in service.  No deficiency in service can be attributed to OP-1 since they are mere retailers, it was OP-2, who had to process the claim.  Therefore, we direct OP-2 to settle the claim within 30 days of receipt of order.  We further award compensation of Rs. 7,500/- on account of mental agony and harassment.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                        (SUKHDEV SINGH)

               Member                                                                  President