BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 240 of 2017
Date of Institution : 27.9.2017
Date of Decision : 8.2.2018
Vinod Gir son of Sh. Mansa Gir resident of Bansudhar P.O Kherekan, District Sirsa(Haryana).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1 Syska Gadget Secure Insurance Company Leehan Retail Pvt. Ltd. resident 4th floor, Sphire Plaza, Plot no.80, S.No.232, New Airport, Sakorenagar, Pune, 411014 District Pune, Maharashtra.
2. Ridhi Sidhi Mobile Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.K. Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that the complainant is a permanent resident of village Bansudhar District Sirsa, and is employee of DHBVNL at Panjuana(Sirsa). The complainant purchased a mobile phone make Panasonic from M/s Ridhi Sidhi Mobiles Sirsa, vide bill no.12271 dated 11.10.2016 for Rs.13000/- for his personal use. The above said phone was insured against any kind of loss or damage by the op no.1 and op no.2 is his authorized service partner. It is further averred that mobile of complainant was insured by them vide coupon no.75271354 dated 11.10.2016 for Rs.899/- as insurance premium for the amount of mobile of Rs.13000/- from 11.10.2016 to 10.10.2016 (wrongly written and it should be 10.10.2017) at Sirsa. The mobile phone of complainant was damaged due to some accident by the cyclist on 17.6.2017 and complaint was lodged to insurer on 18.6.2017 vide complaint no.91706184328. It is further averred that on processing insurer accepted/passed his claim of damages and directed the complainant to send his mobile to Leehan Retail Pvt. Ltd. for repair and asked that insurer will pay the charges of damages and mobile was sent to Leehan Pvt. Ltd. through courier on 23.6.2017. But the mobile phone is not reparable and damaged, so their authorized centre failed to return the said phone after lapse of 2 and half months, however it is relevant to mention here that being Government employee he has to attend many calls in a day, so he hired a phone on rent of Rs.100/- per day and many requests were sent to insurer for early return of mobile but to no effect. Thereafter, complainant got a issued legal notice to the ops on 12.8.2017 but despite that insurer failed to return his mobile or cost of the mobile within reasonable period because mobile is not properly repairable. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 failed to appear and therefore was proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has concocted a false story. The mobile purchased by the complainant from the answering op was never insured by the answering op, because the answering op is not doing the business of selling such insurance policies of the op no.1, rather the answering op only deals with sale and purchase of mobiles only. The answering op was/is not the authorized partner of op no.1. Hence, any grievances towards the op no.1, the answering op is not liable any manner. The answering op never sold any insurance policy to the complainant for the said mobile. The answering op is only seller of the mobiles and for all the grievances of the complainant regarding mobile in question, the op no.1 Insurance Company is liable and responsible and there is no liability upon the answering op regarding mobile in question. As per terms and conditions of the company, the complainant can avail the remedies only against op no.1/Insurance Company. The complainant never approached or contacted the answering op in the matter. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CA, copy of bill Ex.C1 with insurance details Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3 and postal receipt Ex.C4. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Sohan Lal Proprietor Ex.R1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CA in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also placed on record copy of bill Ex.C1 with details of insurance Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3 and postal receipt Ex.C4. He has specifically deposed in his affidavit Ex.CA that he has purchased mobile in question from opposite party no.1 which was insured by ops vide coupon No.75271354 dated 11.10.2016 for Rs.899/- as insurance premium for the amount of mobile of Rs.13,000/-. The premium was paid to Op no.2 Ridhi Sidhi Mobile, Sirsa and he issued receipt in the bill on behalf of insurer. The above said mobile was damaged due to some accident and complaint was lodged to the insurer vide complaint no.91706184328 dated 18.6.2017. He has further deposed that on asking of op no.1, the mobile was sent to it through courier on 23.6.2017 but till today he has not received the mobile after repair and it shows that mobile is not repairable and the company should approve the cost of the mobile. The record further reveals that complainant has got served a legal notice upon op no.1, copy of which has been placed on file as Ex.C3 in which he has reiterated all the facts as mentioned in the complaint. On the other hand, Syska Gadget Secure who is op no.1 did not come forward to contest the complaint and opted to be proceeded against exparte.
7. The opposite party no.2 Ridhi Sidhi Mobile, Sirsa has contested the complaint by filing written statement in which it has asserted that mobile of the complainant was not insured by answering op and op no.2 is not doing the business of selling such insurance policies of the op no.1 and he only deals with sale and purchase of mobiles. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for op no.2 has strongly contended that even copy of the legal notice also reveals that only legal notice was served to Syska Gadget secure insurance company and complainant never called upon Ridhi Sidhi Mobile to reimburse his loss as his loss was to be reimbursed by insurance company. The op no.2 has also furnished affidavit of Sh. Sohan Lal Proprietor. So, it appears that Ridhi Sidhi Mobile, Sirsa op no.2 had nothing to do with the complaint and claim was only to be reimbursed by opposite party no.1, as such complaint qua op no.2 stands dismissed. Since, op no.1 did not come forward to contest the complaint, therefore, the evidence of the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted against op no.1.
8. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint qua op no.1 and direct the opposite party no.1 to get repaired the mobile of the complainant and to make it defect free even by replacing parts, if any without any cost and hand over the same to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if mobile is not repairable, then to make it convenient to give him replacement of the mobile of same make and model or in the alternative to make refund of the amount of Rs.13,000/- i.e. cost of the mobile in question to the complainant within further period of 15 days. We also direct the op no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:8.2.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
