Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/637/2018

Abhishek Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syska Gadget Secure Customer Care - Opp.Party(s)

Arvind Kashyap

17 Jun 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

====

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/637/2018
Date of Institution	:	10/12/2018
Date of Decision	:	17/06/2019

 

Abhishek Sharma S/o Sh. Om Prakash Gour, Resident of H.No.10/1, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

[1]    Syska Gadget Secure Customer Care, 4^th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No.80, S.No.232, New Airport Road, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra – 411001 (the Insurer), through its Auth. Officer.

 

[2]    Rai & Sons, SCO 60, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh – 160047, through its Manager.

……Opposite Party

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person along with Ms. Kulwinder Kaur, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Opposite Party No.1 Ex-parte.
	:	Sh. Satbir Singh Rai, Proprietor of Opposite Party No.2.

 

PER DR.S.K. SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         In brief, the Complainant purchased a Sony Xperia mobile handset on 04.08.2015 for Rs.23,000/- make Aqua from M/s Chawla Brothers, SCO 1035, Sector 22-B (Opp. Bus Stand), Chandigarh (Ex.C-1). The handset was insured with Opposite Party No.1 (Ex.C-2). While driving bike, the said handset fell from the Complainant’s pocket and got damaged. In this regard, the Complainant submitted application dated 29.07.2016 (Ex.C-3) and provided all the requisite documents required by the Opposite Parties for doing the needful. Thereafter, the Complainant was asked to approach Opposite Party No.2 for getting his mobile set repaired. Accordingly, the Complainant submitted his mobile handset for repairs on 25.08.2016 vide job-sheet Ex.C-4. It has been alleged that despite having the insurance cover for the handset, the Opposite Party No.2 called the Complainant and asked him to pay the costs of repair. Therefore, the Complainant gave Complaints to the Opposite Party No.1 on 27.09.2016, 15.10.2016 and 14.12.2016 (Ex.C-6), however, not action was taken on his Complaints.  Opposite Party No.2 dilly dallied the delivery of mobile handset on one pretext or the other and in June 2018 told the Complainant that the handset was given for repairs to another Service Centre. Eventually, on 13.09.2018, Opposite Party No.2 informed the Complainant that his mobile handset could not be traced and had been lost. In this backdrop, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 21.09.2018 upon the Opposite Parties (Ex.C-7), but to no success. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Party No.2 contested the complaint and filed its written statement, inter alia, pleading that it on 27.07.2016 handed over the receipt of closed job card of the mobile phone of Complainant after which the Complainant had never visited the Service Centre nor did he made any communication regarding the status of his mobile handset. It has been asserted that as the mobile of the Complainant was not covered under the warranty clause and in service job card under the warranty head/clause it is shown as “warranty void” as the screen or display of the mobile handset was damaged. Since, the mobile handset of the Complainant was insured by Opposite Party No.1, it was duty of the Complainant to make sure that the payment has been made by Opposite Party No.1 either to Opposite Party No.2 directly or to Complainant himself in lieu of damage caused to the mobile handset. Denying all other allegations and stating 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.  
4.         The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.2.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
7.         Significantly, the Opposite Party No.1 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.1 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.1 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
8.         In the present circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine, as he has been made to run from pillar to post for no fault on his part. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large.
9.         At any rate, Opposite Party No.1 certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have resolved the matter by promptly arranging prompt repair of the mobile handset of the Complainant, which it failed to do and rather propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant, despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time & again. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against it.
10.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed:-

[a]    To make payment in respect of the repairs of the subject handset to Opposite Party No.2 directly and thereafter, to initiate necessary steps to facilitate prompt delivery of the repaired handset to the Complainant, free of cost, to his satisfaction;

[b]    To pay to the complainant Rs.2,500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

[c]    To pay to the complainant Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation.

                The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

11.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable for an interest @7% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [b] & [c] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from compliance of directions as in sub-para [a].
12.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

	Sd/-		Sd/-
17/06/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]		[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member		Presiding Member
“Dutt”