……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT………………… MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that on 19.7.2016 complainant purchased a mobile OPPO NEO-5 (Black) from opposite party no.2 for a sum of Rs.6999/- vide bill No.5048 dated 19.7.2016 and got insured the said mobile from the above said company through opposite party no.2. It is further averred that op no.2 charged an amount of Rs.699/- from the complainant for the insurance of the mobile in question and assured that in case of any damage to the mobile and theft of mobile within one year, the insurance company will pay the cost of the mobile to the complainant and all the formalities to get the claim amount from the insurance company will be done by op no.2. It is further averred that on 26.5.2017 at about 10.00 a.m., the above said mobile of the complainant was stolen from his house and there was sim card of BSNL company bearing number 94681-02432 in the mobile at that time. That complainant at his own tried to search the mobile but when it was not found, he approached to op no.2 and narrated about the theft of the mobile and requested for payment of the insurance amount upon which op no.2 asked to lodge a report in the concerned police station and to submit a copy thereof to him. The complainant at the asking of the officials of Police Station Sadar got lodged the report on 26.5.2017 about the theft of his mobile through online in E-Disha, Mini Sectt. Sirsa. The complainant approached op no.2 with the above said rapat but the opposite party no.2 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant has suffered a lot of harassment and financial loss due to theft of his mobile and making rounds to the op no.2 but op no.2 did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 3 and therefore they were proceeded against exparte. Initially op no.2 appeared through counsel and sought opportunities for filing written statement but on 9.10.2017 learned counsel for op no.2 suffered a statement that he has no instruction to appear on behalf of op no.2, therefore, a fresh notice was ordered to be issued to op no.2 but, however, op no.2 did not appear despite service and therefore, op no.2 was also proceeded against exparte.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.
4. We have heard the complainant and have perused the case file carefully.
5. It is duly proved on record that complainant purchased the mobile in question from the opposite party no.2 for a sum of Rs.6999/- on 19.7.2016 as is evident from copy of invoice Ex.C3. It is also proved on record that complainant got insured his above said mobile at the time of purchase of the same from op no.2 through op no.1 for a period of one year against the amount of Rs.699/- which was charged by op no.2. From document Ex.C5, it is proved on record that op no.1 insured handset/tab cost from Rs.5,001 to 10,000/- against an amount of Rs.699/-. It is also proved on record that above said insured mobile of the complainant was stolen on 26.5.2017 and he got lodged a report in this regard and the copy of lost property report has been placed on file as Ex.C2. The evidence led by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted as the opposite parties have failed to contest the complaint and opted to be proceeded against exparte. The op no.2 has failed to get the grievance of the complainant redressed despite the above said assurances and despite the fact that mobile was stolen in the insurance period although op no.2 got insured the mobile of the complainant from op no.1 against the amount of Rs.699/-. As the complainant purchased the mobile in question for a sum of Rs.6999/- on 19.7.2016 and same was stolen on 26.5.2017 i.e. after a period of about ten months, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that complainant is entitled to reimbursement of the cost of the mobile in question after making some depreciation of the used period. However, no liability of op no.3 of any type is made out. During the course of arguments, complainant has stated at bar that he does not press any relief against OP No.3. As such complaint against op no.3 stands dismissed as not pressed.
6. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint qua opposite parties no.1 and 2 and direct them to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint till actual payment. Both the ops no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:31.10.2017. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
