BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer complaint no. 39 of 2016.
Date of Institution: 3.2.2016.
Date of Decision: 5.12.2016
Rajesh Kumar aged about 28 years son of Shri Radhey Sham, resident of H. No. 475, Near Petrol Pump, Near Vaidwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. SSK Retails Pvt. Ltd. (Syska Gadget Secure) 7 Akshay Complex, Off Dhole Patil Road, Pune-411001 through its Managing Director.
2.SSK Retails Pvt. Ltd., Syska Service Zone, Shop No.89, 1st Floor, Bishnoi Market, Near Aggarsain Chowk, Sirsa through its Manager namely Mr. Bittu Khan Singh.
3. Wadhwa Mobile Care, Near Jaipur Hospital, Circular Road, Sirsa through its owner.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Shri Ashish Singla, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that complainant had purchased a Panasonic mobile model Eluga L from opposite party no.3 vide cash memo No.A-51301 dated 26.5.2015 for a sum of Rs.12,600/-. At the time of purchase, the complainant had also got insured his said mobile through Syska Gadget Secure blanket cover for devices marketed by op no.1. This insurance cover was purchased by complainant for Rs.899/- from op no.3 on the same date. As per the terms and conditions mentioned in the booklet of the insurance package, it was assured that the mobile insured vide this cover is fully covered in case of any physical damage to the same. It was further assured that in case of any claim 10% of the value of the handset will be deducted and remaining shall be paid as claim amount to the insured. On 16.12.2015, when he was going on his motor cycle, then suddenly to save a dog on the road, he turned his motor cycle which unfortunately hit into a ditch and mobile handset which was kept in the upper pocket of his shirt fell down on the road and came under a car. The handset was totally broken and was unable to be used. Then on the same day, he immediately contacted the office of op no.1 at its service centre i.e. op no.2 where he met the Manager namely Bittu Khan Singh who lodged a claim in this regard and kept the original mobile handset with him and issued a job card dated 16.12.2015 to him. The op no.2 assured him that he will get 90% of the invoice price of mobile set within a period of 10 to 15 days. After expiry of a period of 20 days, the complainant contacted the op no.2 but he flatly refused the complainant for settlement of any claim by making one excuse or the other. The complainant also contacted with op no.3 and requested him to help in this regard but he also showed his inability. The opposite parties have failed to pay any heed to his genuine requests. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, none appeared on behalf of op no.3 despite due service and was proceeded against exparte.
3. Ops no.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and sought various opportunities for filing written statement but did not file despite last opportunity and therefore, right of ops no.1 & 2 for filing written statement was closed by order.
4. Complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of cash/credit memo Ex.C2, copy of receipt dated 16.12.2015 of op no.2 Ex.C3, copy of blanket cover Ex,C4 and copy of terms and conditions of insurance Ex.C5.
5. Today, the case was fixed for arguments but none has appeared on behalf of opposite parties no.1 & 2 and as such, they were proceeded against exparte.
6. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.C1 wherein he has testified all the facts so set out by him in his complaint. In support, he has also placed on file copy of cash/credit memo dated 26.5.2015 Ex.C2, copy of receipt of mobile issued by op no.2 on 16.12.2015 Ex.C3, and copy of insurance cover Ex.C4 vide which the mobile in question was insured with opposite party no.1 through op no.3 for which complainant paid an amount of Rs.899/- to them. There is no rebuttal to the pleadings and evidence led by the complainant. According to the complainant, the mobile in question was totally damaged as it fell down on the road and was run over by a car and same was deposited with the opposite party no.2 but till today he has not received the claim of the mobile in question from the ops. Therefore, all the opposite parties being insurer of the mobile, service centre and seller through whom the mobile was insured are liable to refund 90% of the value of the mobile in question which was purchased for a sum of Rs.12,600/- as per terms and conditions of insurance cover Ex.C5.
8. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct all the opposite parties to pay 90% of the insured value of the mobile in question to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:5.12.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
