Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 555.
Instituted on : 22.09.2017.
Decided on : 11.03.2019.
Deepak Malik, age 34 year, son of Sh. Balwan Singh, resident of H.No. 417/22, Dev Colony, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
1. Syska Gadget Secure 4th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No. 80, S.No. 232, Near Airport Road, near Symbiosis College, Sacore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014, through its Manager.
2. Chit Chat Mobile Mania, opp. Shop No. 125, 1st Floor, Sheetal Life Style Mall, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Dharmender Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Nikesh Kinra, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party No. 2 already exparte vide order dated 18.12.2017.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a iphone-7 128 GB mobile phone having IMEI No. 359154072918669 from the respondent No. 2 vide invoice no.2419 dated 18.10.2016 for Rs.70,000/- and the same was got insured for all types of damages upto to the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the OP vide code No. 73122576 and the complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 2,999/- as insurance premium. On 15.03.2017, the screen of said mobile phone has been broken. The complainant has intimated the officials of the OPs company about the damage of his mobile and he has sent a claim for damage of his mobile through email, but the OPs did not pay any heed. On 24.07.2017, the OPs have illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there is delay of 48 hours in intimating the company. Complainant also sent a legal notice on 22.08.2017, but all in vain. That the act of opposite parties of not paying the claim amount is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay insurance claim amount of Rs.70,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Reply not filed by OP No. 1 after availing several opportunities, hence, defence of the OP No. 1 was struck off vide order dated 29.10.2018 passed by this Forum.
3. Whereas, notice issued OP No. 2 received back with the report of refusal, hence, OP No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.12.2017 passed by this Forum.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence on dated 18.12.2018.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is observed that as per copy of email Ex.C9, the claim of the complainant has been rejected by the Syska Gadget Secure on the ground that the intimation has been given belatedly after 48 hours of the damage. But to prove the same, no terms and conditions have been placed on record by the opposite party. It is also on record that in the present case neither any reply nor any document has been placed on record by the opposite party No.1 to prove his case and the defence of the opposite party No.1 was struck off vide order dated 29.10.2018 of this Forum and thereafter no application to join the proceeding has been filed by the opposite party No.1. Hence, in the absence of any document/terms and conditions of the policy, deficiency in service is established on behalf of the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant. It is also on record that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 18.10.2016 and the damage to the mobile set had taken place on 15.03.2017. Hence the complainant is entitled for the claim after deduction of 25% depreciation on it.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party No.1 shall refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.70000/- after deduction of 25% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.52500/-(Rupees fifty two thousand five hundred only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 22.09.2017 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite party No.1.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.03.2019
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member
