CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII
DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN
SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077
CASE NO.CC/246/17
Date of Institution:- 11.04.2017
Order Reserved on:- 17.01.2024
Date of Decision:- 18.04.2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
Monu Singh
S/o Sh. Dinesh Singh
R/o House No.S-184/144,
New Sanjay Camp, Okhla Phase-I,
New Delhi- 110020
.….. Complainant
VERSUS
- M/s SRS Telecom Services
C-190, 1st Floor, Naraina Industrial Area,
Phase-I, New Delhi -110028
- M/s Syska Gadget Secure
-
New Airport Road,
Near Symbiosic College, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar,
Pune, Maharashtra - 411014
.…..Opposite Parties
Suresh Kumar Gupta, President
- The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that on 28.11.2015 he has purchased mobile phone SM No.J500F RZ5GB12C G3B 352672078124484for a sum of Rs.13799/- including insurance package i.e. Syska 1199 of Rs.1141.90/- from Sigmen Radio Kalka Ji, New Delhi. The mobile was insured by OP-2 which has provided insurance for physical damage, liquid, water damage, theft and fire protection. The mobile has been damaged when he was coming down from stair case. He contacted the insurance company for repair/replacement of mobile and even submitted mobile insurance claim form. He visit the office of OP-1 and completed all the formalities. On 18.07.2016, he visited the office of OP-1 but phone was not repaired. Later on it was informed that mobile has stolen from the office and FIR dated 17.08.2016 has been registered. He sent a legal notice dated 17.12.2016 to the OPs but in vain. Hence, this complaint.
- The OP-1 did not appear despite due service and accordingly proceeded ex-parte on 01.08.2017.
- The OP-2 has filed the reply with the averments that OP-2 is a service provider and insurance is provided by M/s New India Assurance Ltd. Co. so claim must be lodged with the insurance company. The mobile phone was not insured by OP-2.The complainant has concocted a story in order to harass OP-2. The allegations of the complainant are denied.
- The complainant has filed the rejoinder to the written statement of OP-2 wherein he has denied the averments of written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.
- The parties were directed to lead the evidence.
- The complainant has filed his own evidence and corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents Annexure-1 to 4 annexed with the complaint.
- The OP-2 has filed the evidence by way Sh. PramodLakhde, AR of OP-2 in evidence, and corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on board resolution Ex.OP-2/1.
- We have heard the complainant as no one has appeared from the OP-2 to address the arguments despite grant of the time to address the arguments.
- It is clear from the material on record that complainant has purchased mobile phone in questionfrom Sigmen Radio Kalka Ji which is apparent from Annexure-1. The mobile phone was physically damaged upon which claim was lodged by filling mobile insurance claim form Annexure-2 and submitted at the office of OP-1. The complainant has deposited the phone with OP-1. The phone has been stolen from the office of OP-1 regarding which FIR No.WSD/NA/000122 dated 17.08.2016 was lodged.
- The phone was deposited with OP-1 by the complainant. The phone has been stolen from the office of OP-1. It was the duty of OP-1 either to return back the mobile phone with or without repair to the complainant. The OP-1 is duty bound to pay the price of mobile phone to the complainant in case the phone has been stolen from its custody. The complainant should not suffer for the fault of the OP-1.There is definitely a deficiency of service on the part of OP-1.
- OP-2 is a service provider. No fault can be find with OP-2 as phone has been stolen from the custody of OP-1. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP-2 once the mobile phone has been stolen from the custody/possession of OP-1.
- In view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed to the effect that OP-1 shall pay a sum of Rs.13,799/- with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 11.04.2017 till its realization. The complainant has undergone mental agony so complainant is also entitled for compensation on this score also. The OP-1 shall payRs.5,000/- towards compensation and litigation charges. The OP-1 shall comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of order failing which complainant is entitled for interest @7% p.a. on compensation from the date of order till its realization.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 18.04.2024.
