Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/723

Gurvikram Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syska Gadget Secure - Opp.Party(s)

19 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 723 of 04.10.2017

Date of Decision            :   19.11.2018

Gurvikram Singh son of S.Tejinder Singh resident of House No.12-B, Shastri Nagar, Near Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Syska Gadget Secure, 232, New Airport Road, Air Force Area, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra-411014.

2.B2X Samsung Rohtak, Jain Mansion, HUDA Complex, Opposite City Centre Mall, (Nr. Daikin AC Showroom), Rohtak, Haryana-124001.

3.M/s Gupta Music Café, Shop No.1, Hotel Lee Classic Market, Mata Rani Road, Opposite Corporation Building, Ludhiana, Punjab.

4.Samsung Service Centre, 18-AX, Guru Nanak Tower, First Floor, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana, Punjab.

Opposite parties

 

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant              :         Sh.Gagandeep Kapoor, Advocate

For OP1 and OP2           :         Ex-parte.

For OP3 & OP4             :         Complaint not admitted vide order dated

10.10.2017.                    

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant purchased new Samsung Galaxy A8 (A800) mobile phone from OP3 vide invoice No.6210 dated 22.1.2016 in cash. At the time of purchase, representatives of OP1 and OP2 were available and that is why, the mobile phone in question was got insured by paying an amount of Rs.1999/-. At that time, representative of OP1 assured the complainant that in case of damage or loss caused to the mobile phone, complainant can claim the price amount of the same at any time from OP1. A card of Syska Gadget Secure No.49253838 SGI 1999-18927013 was issued to the complainant. However, copy of cover note or of insurance policy not supplied. On 9.9.2016, the complainant was going from his shop to his house in Shastri Nagar (Model Town), Ludhiana, when he met with an accident. Front wheel of the scooter went into pot hole, as a result of which, complainant fell down, resulting in damage to the mobile phone which was kept by him in the pocket of his trouser. Some unknown persons left the complainant to his house from the spot of accident because the scooter even was badly damaged. Complainant approached OP4 for repair, but he refused to oblige the complainant. Thereafter, claim was lodged with OP1 and OP2, on which, employee of OP2 gave assurance to the complainant. On such assurance, complainant handed over his mobile phone to employee of Op2. That employee of OP2 assured the complainant for early settlement of claim. On 3.9.2016, employee of OP2 received the mobile handset from complainant and issued a pickup receipt. Even OP2 received a cross signed cheque from the complainant and issued a pickup receipt No.1017910037273. Till date, the complainant has not received back the mobile handset and nor has received the amount of insurance claim. Despite legal notice sent through counsel on 13.12.2016, nothing has been done and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, this complaint filed with the prayer for directing Ops to pay the amount of Rs.25,500/-, the sale price of mobile handset in question. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.70,500/- more claimed.

2.                  Complaint against OP3 and Op4 was not admitted at the admission stage itself because for the insurance claim, only insurer is liable and not the manufacturer or the seller. OP1 and OP2 are ex-parte in this case.

3.                Counsel for complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CA of complainant along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments of counsel for complainant heard. Records gone through carefully.

5.                Perusal of affidavit Ex.CA along with retail invoice Ex.C1 establishes that the complainant purchased the Samsung mobile handset in question from OP3 by paying the price of Rs.25,500/- on 22.1.2016. This mobile handset in question was insured with Op1 and that is why Syska Gadget Secure card Ex.C3 was issued in favour of complainant. On damage to this mobile handset in September 2016 in an accident, insurance claim was lodged is a fact borne from the contents of copy of insurance claim form Ex.C2. This mobile handset was in the pocket of trouser of complainant, when he met with an accident on 9.9.2016. Damage to mobile handset in question as such was caused not on account of improper handling of mobile by the complainant. Rather, that damage to mobile handset took place because of unforeseen circumstances resulting in accident of scooter of complainant. Being so, complainant entitled for insurance claim amount, particularly when he through receipt Ex.C4 able to establish that he deposited this mobile handset with OP2 on 30.9.2016 along with copy of blank cheque Ex.C5. Despite sending of legal notice Ex.C6 through postal receipts Ex.C7 to Ex.C10, insurance claim has not been paid by the insurer i.e. OP1. Rather, the mobile handset in question has been retained by OP2 as representative of OP1 after receipt of the same through receipt Ex.C4 referred above and as such, certainly OP1 and OP2 despite liability of paying the insurance claim for the damage caused to the insured mobile handset in question, has not paid any amount and nor returned back the repaired mobile handset to the complainant. In such circumstances, direction needs  be issued to OP1 and OP2 to settle the claim of complainant within specified period and then pay the due amount within specified period, failing which, to pay interest @6% per annum on the found amount w.e.f. today till payment. Complainant also entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment and to litigation expenses because he had been dragged to this litigation due to in action of OP1 and OP2 to do the needful, despite lodging of insurance claim and submission of documents by him.

6.             Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to OP1 and OP2 to settle the claim of complainant within 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and then pay the due amount within 30 days, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @6% per annum on found amount w.e.f  today till payment. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees  Five Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against  OP1 and OP2, whose liability for paying these amounts held as     joint and several. Payment of these amounts of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

7.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                     (Vinod Gulati)                                (G.K. Dhir)

              Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:19.11.2018

Gurpreet Sharma.