BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.537 of 2015

Date of Instt. 23.12.2015

Date of Decision : 21.07.2016

Sumit Sharma son of Parveen Sharma R/o H.No.474, Guru Amardass Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.Syska Gadget Secure (Insurance Company) at 4 SSK Saphire Plaza, Pune Airport Road, near Sysbiosis Collage, Pune-411014.

2.Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd., at Phagwara Gate, near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.

3.Logic Computers at over SBI ATM, near Bank of India, Jaswant Nagar, Garha Road, Jalandhar City.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Sanjiv Sharma Adv., counsel for OP No.3.

Opposite parties No.1 & 2 exparte.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that complainant purchased Lenovo S60 mobile set from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 16.7.2015 for a sum of Rs.12,400/-. Complainant got insured the said mobile set from OP No.1 on payment of premium of Rs.899. After three months, the said mobile set became out of order and the complainant approached OP No.3 who reported that the mobile is totally damaged and they kept the mobile set with them vide job sheet dated 14.10.2015. OP No.3 could not repair the mobile set nor returned the same to the complainant. Complainant approached OP No.1 for payment of the amount of the mobile set under insurance but OP No.1 also did not pay the amount of the mobile set as per insurance policy. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to refund the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.12,400/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that complainant handed over the mobile set to OP No.3 when it was not working (totally dead) on 14.10.2015. The said mobile set was totally damaged and as such could not be repaired. However, OP No.3 is ready to repair the mobile set against payment.

3. Notice of this complaint was given to the OPs No.1 & 2 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP3/A and closed evidence.

6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Lenovo S60 mobile set from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 16.7.2015 Ex.C2 for a sum of Rs.12,400/-. Complainant got insured the said mobile set from OP No.1 on payment of premium of Rs.899/- vide invoice Ex.C3. After three months, the said mobile set became out of order and the complainant approached OP No.3 who reported that the mobile is totally damaged and they kept the mobile set with them vide job sheet dated 14.10.2015 Ex.C1. OP No.3 could not repair the mobile set nor returned the same to the complainant. Complainant approached OP No.1 for payment of the amount of the mobile set under insurance but OP No.1 also did not pay the amount of the mobile set as per insurance policy. Complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 3 qua the complainant.

8. Whereas the case of the OP No.3 is that complainant handed over the mobile set to OP No.3 when it was not working (totally dead) on 14.10.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C1. The said mobile set was totally damaged and as such could not be repaired. However, OP No.3 is ready to repair the mobile set against payment. Learned counsel for the OP No.3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.3 qua the complainant.

9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant got insured his mobile set Lenovo S60 which he purchased from OP No2 vide invoice dated 16.7.2015 Ex.C2, which was insured by OP No.1 on payment of Rs.899/- vide retail invoice Ex.C3. The said mobile set became totally dead and the complainant handed over the same to OP No.3 service centre on 14.10.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C1. OP No.3 has categorically admitted in their written version as well as in evidence i.e. affidavit of Gurpreet Singh Bawa, Proprietor of OP NO.3 Ex.OP3/A that the product was totally damaged, as such same was not repairable. Therefore, OP No.1 was liable to pay the amount of the mobile set to the complainant as per insurance vide invoice Ex.C3 but none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 to contest this complaint nor any person on behalf of OP No.1 dared to file affidavit to rebut the evidence produced on record by the complainant. All this shows that the mobile set of the complainant was insured with OP No.1 and the same became out of order and was totally damaged as per version of OP No.3 service centre in their written version. Therefore, the evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged qua OP No.1. Resultantly, we hold that OP No.1 is liable to pay the amount of the mobile set to the complainant as it was duly insured with OP No.1.

10. Resultantly, we allow the complaint with cost against OP No.1 and OP No.1 is directed to pay the amount of the mobile set to the complainant i.e. Rs.12,400/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which OP No.1 shall also be liable to pay interest @ Rs.9/- % per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. OP No.1 is also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

21.07.2016 Member President