BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.44 of 2016
Date of Instt. 20.01.2016
Date of Decision : 06.05.2016
Naresh Kumar Middha son of Bhushan Lal R/o 2/19, Dilbagh Nagar, Ext.Basti Guzan, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Syska Gadget Secure, 4th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No.80, S.No.232, New Airport Road, Near Symbiosis College, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune (Maharashtra) through its MD/CEO/Authorized Representative.
2. Syska Gadget Secure, Mobile House, M/s Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd., Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar through its authorized representative.
.........Opposite parties.
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Rohit Gambhir Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased an Apple Iphone i6 16GB from M/s Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar vide invoice dated 9.7.2015 for a sum of Rs.40,201. The complainant got insured the said mobile phone from OP No.2 through M/s Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd., Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar vide insurance cover/scratch code No.56188731 by making payment of Rs.1999/-. On 3.12.2015 the said phone was damaged accidentally. The complainant approached the authorized service centre i.e. B2X Service Solution Pvt Ltd., 182R Ground Floor, Model Town, Jalandhar for repair of the said phone and they returned the phone to the complainant with the remarks that device is water damaged and raised the replacement charges to the tune of Rs.24,755/- vide performa invoice dated 9.2.2015. The complainant lodged claim of Rs.24,755/- with the OP No.2 on 9.12.2015 but the OP rejected the claim of the complainant vide information without assigning any reason stating only that the claim has been rejected by validation and scrutiny. The complainant served legal notice upon the OPs through registered post but OPs did not settle the claim of the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay the insurance claim to the tune of Rs.24,755/-. He has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties were served but OPs neither appeared nor filed written statement as such they were proceeded against exparte.
3. In support of his exparte complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the exparte evidence of the complainant.
4. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the counsel for the complainant with the valuable assistance of Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
5. From the averments of the complaint and evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased Apple Iphone i6 16GB from M/s Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar vide invoice dated 9.7.2015 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.40,201/-. The complainant got insured the said mobile phone from OP No.2 through M/s Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd., Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar vide insurance cover/scratch code No.56188731 Ex.C3 by making payment of Rs.1999/- vide receipt Ex.C2 to the OP No.2. On 3.12.2015 the said phone was damaged accidentally. The complainant approached the authorized service centre i.e. B2X Service Solution Pvt Ltd., 182R Ground Floor, Model Town, Jalandhar for repair of the said phone vide job sheet Ex.C4 and they returned the phone to the complainant with the remarks that device is water damaged and raised the replacement charges to the tune of Rs.24,755/- vide performa invoice dated 9.2.2015 Ex.C5. The complainant lodged claim of Rs.24,755/- with the OP No.2 on 9.12.2015 vide claim form Ex.C6 but the OP rejected the claim of the complainant vide online information Ex.C7 without assigning any reason stating only that the claim has been rejected by validation and scrutiny. The complainant served legal notice upon the OPs dated 21.12.2015 Ex.C8 through registered post, postal receipts of which are Ex.C9 and Ex.C10 but inspite of that the OPs did not settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant proved his averments in the complaint through affidavit Ex.CA and also proved on record invoice of mobile set Ex.C1, receipt regarding payment of premium of insurance Ex.C2, insurance cover Ex.C3 which fully proved that the mobile set of the complainant was insured with the OP even for physical/fluid damage (water logged). The job sheet dated 3.12.2015 Ex.C4 which fully proved that the mobile set of the complainant became dead due to water log and the authorized service centre of the mobile set raised replacement charges to the tune of Rs.24,755/- as per performa invoice Ex.C5. The claim form submitted by the complainant with the OP Ex.C6. Rejection information Ex.C7 received by the complainant from toll free number, the legal notice served by the complainant upon the OPs Ex.C8 through registered post. The case of the complainant and the evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as none appeared on behalf of the OPs despite proper service, to contest the complaint of the complainant nor any person from the OPs dared to file affidavit to rebut the evidence produced on file by the complainant. So, it stands fully proved on record that the mobile of the complainant insured with OPs and the same was damaged within the insurance period and the authorized service centre of the mobile set raised replacement charges to the tune of Rs.24,755/-. As such, the OPs are liable to pay/reimburse this amount of Rs.24,755/- to the complainant but the OP has wrongly rejected the claim case of the complainant without assigning any reason vide intimation Ex.C7. Hence OPs were not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant without assigning any reason.
6. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed exparte with cost and the OPs are directed to reimburse this amount of Rs.24,577/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest on the claim amount i.e. Rs.24,577/- @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay cost of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/-. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh
06.05.2016 Member Member President
