Ms. Manju filed a consumer case on 31 May 2018 against Syska Gadget Secure in the North East Consumer Court. The case no is CC/183/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 11 Jun 2018.
Delhi
North East
CC/183/2017
Ms. Manju - Complainant(s)
Versus
Syska Gadget Secure - Opp.Party(s)
31 May 2018
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST
7-Akshay Complex, Off Dhole Patil Road, Pune 411001
Also at : 4th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No. 80, Sr. No. 232, New Airport Road, Near Symbiosis College, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra 411014
ATS Best Price Multi Brand Mobile
Shop No. 519/3, Gali No. 2, Near Reliance Fresh, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi 110032
Opposite Parties
DATE OF INSTITUTION:
11.07.2017
RESERVED FOR ORDER:
23.05.2018
DATE OF DECISION:
31.05.2018
N.K. Sharma, President
Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member
Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member
Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-
ORDER
Briefly stated, the complainant had submitted that she had purchased a Samsung Mobile Model – S7 Edge for Rs. 53,000/- vide bill no. 367 dated 23.04.2016 from OP2 which is a multi brand mobile showroom and simultaneously on the recommendations of OP2, the complainant had purchased an Insurance Policy from OP1 bearing no. SGI-1999-85189101 for the said mobile by making a payment of Rs. 2500/- towards premium to OP1. It has been stated further that on 26.1.2017 around 03:30 p.m., the complainant was in market of Chota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi when a motor cycle rider hit the complainant from behind and result of which the complainant fell down on the road and mobile display screen and back panel of the mobile phone was broken. Therefore, on 27.01.2017 the complainant approached OP1 and OP2 and informed them about the damage of the mobile phone and sent all related documents to OP1 by courier on 11.02.2017. It has been stated that however, even after a month, the OP1 neither replied nor took any action to repair the damage of the phone and the complainant approached OP1 again and OP1 informed the complainant that they have not received the documents even though the courier tracking report clearly showed that the courier had been delivered to OP1. The complainant, however again sent the documents to OP1 but again OP1 stated that the same was not received. On further insistence by the complainant the OP1 asked the complainant to send the damaged phone by courier alongwith documents but this time, the complainant insisted that OP1 should send his representative for collection of mobile so that complainant could be sure that mobile had been duly received by OP1. However, the OP1 never sent his representative for collection or took any action for repair the damaged phone. The complainant further approached OP2 but OP2 also denied to repair or get the insurance claim from OP1 and therefore, the complainant was left with no choice but to file the present complaint before this Forum seeking directions against the OPs to pay Rs. 53,000/- for the cost of mobile alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for physical, mental and financial loss and Rs. 1,00,000/- for litigation charges.
Further, an application u/s 151 CPC has been filed by the complainant for directions to OP to pay interim relief of Rs. 1,04,000/- (Rs. 53,000/- as cost of mobile and Rs. 50,000/- as half of the litigation charges). Besides the above, a special power of attorneyin favour of Ms. Neha Bakshi has been attached as lawful attorney in the name of complainant. The complainant has also attached a copy of the retail invoice bearing no. 367 dated 23.04.2016 issued in her favour by OP2 for the purchase of the above said mobile phone for an amount of Rs. 53,000/-. Besides the above, a copy of mobile box bar code, picture of mobile front and back panel damaged, copy of picture of mobile back panel damaged, copy of dispatch courier slip for the documents sent to OP1, copy of insurance card no. 49039968 SGI-1999-85189101 barcode of OP1, photocopy of delivery of consignment to OP1 alongwith copy of mobile insurance claim form has been attached.
The notice u/s 13 CPA was issued to OPs for appearance on 11.08.2017 which were duly served. However, none of the OP appeared before this Forum and as such both the OPs were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 21.09.2017.
Ex parte evidence by way of affidavit as well as written arguments filed by the complainant on 24.11.2017 and 19.12.2017 respectively wherein grievance of the complainant in her complaint was reiterated.
We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and have also gone through the evidence submitted by her in support of her contentions. In light of the insurance card to prove issuance of policy to establish relationship between the complainant and OP1 as insured and insurer with respect to the subject mobile in question, in addition to documentary proof of lodging of claim vide correspondence by the complainant with OP1 of postal receipts / tracking report have been placed on record by the complainant anywhere in her pleadings the complainant has substantiated the allegations leveled therein against OP1 for deficiency of service.
Keeping in view of the above we are of the considered view that the OP1 failed to honour the insurance claim of the complainant with respect to the mobile in question which was duly insured with it and we therefore direct the OP1 to pay a sum of Rs. 53,000/- towards the cost of the insured mobile alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization. We also direct OP1 to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for physical, mental and financial loss and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant payable by the OP1.
Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
File be consigned to record room.
(Announced on 31.05.2018)
(N.K. Sharma)
President
(Sonica Mehrotra)
Member
(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.