Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/654/2017

Varun Preet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Harkaran Singh

01 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/654/2017
Date of Institution	:	15/09/2017
Date of Decision	:	01/06/2018

 

Varun Preet Singh son of Baldev Singh, R/o H.No.167, Ward No.13, Kurali, District Mohali.

....Complainant

V E R S U S

 

[1]      Syska Gadget Secure Lehan Retails Pvt. Ltd., through its General Manager, 4^th Floor, Saphire Plaza, Plot No.80, New Airport Road, Pune-411014.

[2]      National Watch House, SCO 1031, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its General Manager.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Harkaran Singh, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Counsel for OP No.1.
	:	OP No.2 ex-parte.

                       

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Varun Preet Singh, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Syska Gadget Secure Lehan Retails Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he got his Samsung Galaxy S-7H 32 GB, G-935 mobile handset worth Rs.56,900/- (Cash Memo Annexure C-2) duly insured/ secured from Opposite Party No.1 by paying Rs.2399/- vide bill dated 29.05.2016 (Annexure C-1). On breaking down of the Screen of the aforesaid mobile handset, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties on 10.10.2016, but no one came forward to resolve the issue and rather, advised him vide Annexure C-3 to send the handset at his own risk to the Service Centre at Pune. It has been alleged that the Complainant was kept in dark regarding non-existence of the Service Centre of Opposite Party No.1 in Chandigarh. Eventually, a legal notice dated 13.04.2017 was served upon the Opposite Parties, but the same failed to fructify. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant have preferred the present Complaint.     
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.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 filed reply, inter alia, pleading that the Complainant himself refused to submit his damaged mobile handset to the Service Centre for repairs to answering Opposite Party. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
5.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and counter affidavits. 
6.         We have heard the learned counsels for contesting Parties and gone through the record of the case. Per material on record, we arrive at the following conclusions.
7.         It is borne on record that the Complainant had purchased the subject handset on 29.05.2016 from Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.56,900/- vide Annexure C-2 and along with it, he also purchased Syska Gadget Secure Policy for Rs.2,399/- for the said handset from Opposite Party No.2. Admittedly, during the currency of the said Policy, the handset in question got damaged and the screen of the same had broken down. Despite lodging claim by the Complainant with the Opposite Parties, they failed to take concrete steps to redress the grievance of Complainant, which in itself shows deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. As the handset was used by the Complainant for around four months, therefore, we deem it appropriate to deduct 25% of the invoice amount towards depreciation.
8.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed:-

[i]     To pay Rs.42,675/- (after deducting 25% of the invoice price towards depreciation) to the Complainant;

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

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

9.         This order be complied with by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, jointly and severally, within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No. (i) & (ii) above, with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(iii) above.
10.         The Complainant shall return the defective mobile handset in question, if it is in his possession, to the Opposite Party No.2, after the compliance of the order.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced                                       

01.06.2018

                                 Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

      

                          

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”