Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/80/2018

Tushar Ahuja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syska Gadget Secure, Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amritveer Singh

29 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/80/2018
Date of Institution	:	05/02/2018
Date of Decision	:	29/11/2018

 

Tushar Ahuja S/o Girish Ahuja, R/o H.No.2430-31, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Syska Gadget Secure, Leehan Retails Pvt. Limited, Address: 4^th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No.80, S.No.232, New Airport Road, Near Symbiosis College, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra, Pin Code: 411014, through its CMD.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM        :	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K. SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Karajveer Singh, Adv., Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh.Madan Dasila, Adv., along with Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv., Counsel for Opposite Party.

Per Dr.S.K Sardana, Member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that on 04.11.2016, the Complainant purchased iPhone 7 from Bombay Communication, Booth No.34, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh (Near Congress Bhawan), vide Receipt Annexure C-1. Simultaneously, the Complainant also purchased an insurance policy of Opposite Party vide insurance certificate Annexure C-2. On 29.10.2017, the aforesaid insured mobile phone got damaged owing to minor accident. After complying with the requisite formalities, the Complainant sent the damaged mobile phone to Opposite Party on 02.11.2017 vide Annexure C-5. However, the Opposite Party neither returned nor the repaired the insured mobile phone and kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. The Complainant also exchanged protracted correspondence through e-mail with the Opposite Party (Annexure C-6 to C-14), but the same did not prove to be fruitful. 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 Party.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party contested the claim of the Complainant by filing its reply, inter alia, admitting the factual matrix of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant had not informed the Opposite Party timely and also has not submitted his damaged mobile with the authorized repairer within time as mentioned in the terms & conditions of the insurance policy and also violated the terms & conditions of the insurance policy. The Complainant just wants to change his mobile handset and thus intentionally lodged a false claim. The handset of the Complainant was returned to him and dispatched on 20.04.2017 as per his request on the assurance that he would withdraw his case. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
6.         From the evidence available on the file, we find that the mobile handset, which was under insurance cover was neither repaired nor handed over back to the Complainant by the Opposite Party, which has led to the filing of the present Complaint. The Opposite Party in its version has categorically urged that it is only liable to pay 50% amount of repair invoice amount, in case of partial loss as per depreciation clause at Page No.28 of its reply.  However, we are not impressed with this submission, in as much as the mobile handset in question was neither repaired nor handed over to the Complainant, despite his repeated endevours. It is worthwhile to mention that the subject handset is lying with the Opposite Party for want of necessary repairs. However, as the handset was used by the Complainant for around 11 months, before damage, therefore, we deem it appropriate to deduct 50% of the invoice amount towards depreciation.
7.         In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Party is directed as under:-

[a]    To pay Rs.38,500/- (after deducting 50% of the invoice price towards depreciation) to the Complainant;

 [b]   To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]    To also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

 

8.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]. 
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
29/11/2018	[Dr.S.K. Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”