Sandeep Kumar S/o Prem Chand filed a consumer case on 23 Jun 2016 against Syska Gadget Secure Blanket Cover For Devices in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is CC/93/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 08 Jul 2016.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No.93 of 2016
Date of instt.: 19.03.2016
Date of decision 23.6.2016
Sandeep Kumar son of Shri Prem Chand resident of village New Bahadurpura tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.
……..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Syska Gadget Secure Blanket Cover for Devices at Kunjpur Road Karnal (Swagat Mobile Shop)
2.Syska Gadget Secure Blanket Cover for Devices 4th Floor, Sapphire Plazza plot no.80, Sr. no.232 New Airport Rd near Symbiosis Collegbe Sakore Nagar Viman Nagar Pune (Maharastra) 41174.
………… Opposite Parties.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.
Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.
Present:- Complainant in person.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER:
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that on 01.07.2015 he placed order no.7033580551 to Snapdeal for online purchasing Samsung Galaxy Grand Max 16 GB. After getting delivery of the said mobile bearing IMEI no.358827061116160 on 4.7.2015, he got the same insured from opposite party no.1 on 5.7.2015, within 48 hours. After three months there was accidental damage to the mobile and he gave intimation of the same to opposite party no.1 on the next day. However, despite completing all the documents, the opposite party no.1 did not give satisfactory reply regarding his claim and he was being harassed unnecessarily.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties, but none put into appearance on their behalf despite service, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiating against them, vide order dated 11.5.2016.
3. In evidence of the complainant, he tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C4.
4 We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the documents placed on file carefully.
5. The complainant had purchased online one mobile make Samsung Galaxy Grand Max 16 GB. It was delivered to him on 4.7.2015 and he got the same insured with opposite party no.1 on 5.7.2015, as is evident from documents Ex.C2 to C4. As per his allegations the said mobile was damaged in accident after three months of its purchase, he lodged claim with the opposite parties, but his claim was not settled. In support of his allegations he has filed his affidavit also. This oral as well as documentary evidence has gone completely unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, it stands established that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
6. As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.12900/- as insured value of the mobile set alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1100/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
Dated: 23.06.2016
(K.C.Sharma)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Anil Sharma)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.