Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/237/2017

Sushil Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syska Gadget Insurance Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Verma

18 Sep 2017

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/237/2017
Date  of  Institution	:	17/03/2017
Date   of   Decision	:	18/09/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Sushil Gupta son of Sh. J.R. Gupta, R/o H.No. 26, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.

 

……… Complainant.

Versus

 

1)   SYSKA Gadget Insurance Pvt. Limited, 4^th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No.80, S.No.232, New Airport Road, New Symbiosis College, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra – 411014, through its Manager.

 

2)   Paramatrix Info Solution Pvt. Limited, SCO 112-113, HF, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022, through its Manager.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMEBR

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Nishant Arya, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.1	:	Sh. N.S. Sidhu, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.2	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Sh. Sushil Gupta, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Syska Gadget Insurance Pvt. Limited & Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he purchased a new Laptop make ‘Apple’ model ‘Mac-Book Pro-101 HN/A’ on 20.06.2016 from Opposite Party No.2 for a sale consideration of Rs.64,000/- vide invoice Annexure C-1. The Complainant also got the said Laptop insured with the Opposite Party No.2 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.2999/- vide invoice dated 21.06.2016 (Annexure C-2). It has been averred that due to water, some problems arose in the said Laptop and on the directions of Opposite Party No.2, a claim was lodged with the Opposite Party No.1, but the Opposite Party No.1 rejected the same saying that the claim does not meet eligibility criteria. Eventually, a legal notice dated 08.01.2017 was also served upon the Opposite Parties, but they did not concede the justified request of the Complainant. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant has preferred the present Complaint.     

 

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

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that when the Laptop in question was damaged, the Complainant did not approach the answering Opposite Party within 48 hours. The incident took place on dated 18.11.2016 and the Complainant approached the answering Opposite Party on 24.11.2016. There is delay of more than 48 hours in registering the claim with the answering Opposite Party, therefore, pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.2 in its reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has pleaded that on physical examination of the Laptop, it was found that the same was liquid damaged and as per the guidelines of Apple India Pvt. Ltd. it violates the terms and conditions of warranty. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      The Complainant filed separate replications wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the reply by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have been controverted.

 

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

 

7.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

8.      The grievance of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party No.1 erroneously rejected his claim on the ground that it does not meet the eligibility criteria. Per contra, the Opposite Party No.1 has held its nerve stating that as the Complainant did not approach it within 48 hours, no cause of action arose against it.

 

9.      Annexure R-2/1, which is a copy of the delivery report, makes its abundantly clear that the Laptop (Mac Book) in question was brought to the Opposite Party No.2 by Mr. Naveen Gupta on 14.11.2016 within warranty period of the product and the same was returned to the said Mr. Naveen Gupta on 15.11.2006. Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has argued that the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 on 15.11.2006 itself, but the Opposite Party No.1 rejected the claim of the Complainant on 24.11.2016 vide Annexure C-3 on the flimsy ground of delay in approaching them. Contrary to this, no such document has been brought on record by the Opposite Party No.1 to substantiate that there is delay of more than 48 hours in registering the claim or that the Complainant did not approach it within 48 hours. By making bald assertions, which have not been proved on record,  the Opposite Party No.1 has tried to justify their arbitrary and unjustified acts of rejecting the well-founded claim of the Complainant to which he was entitled to by adopting unfair trade practice. Once the Opposite Parties are doing business from one counter, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the Respondent No.1 to state that the Complainant did not approach it on time.   

 

                                              

10.      Admittedly, the Laptop is insured with the Opposite Party No.1 and it is definitely liable to indemnify the loss to the Complainant as per the insurance policy. It has come on record that the Opposite Party No.1 has not rejected the claim of the Complainant on the ground of liquid damage rather, the same was rejected on the ground that it does not meet the eligibility criteria. In this way, the liquid damage is admittedly covered under the insurance policy and the Complainant is fully entitled to the claim for damages to the Laptop. Rejecting the claim of the Complainant in a sheer mechanical way by the Opposite Parties, to our mind, surely & definitely amounts to deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.

 

11.      In the light of above observations, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To pay the claim of the Complainant after deducting 25% as depreciation of the invoice amount value of the Laptop in terms of Policy;

 

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

 

[c]  To pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

 

12.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] and [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].  

 

13.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

18^th Sept., 2017                                                Sd/-         

 (SURJEET KAUR)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                              Sd/- 

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”