| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.160 of 12-06-2017 Decided on 27-02-2018 Rakesh Kumar S/o Sat Pal R/o Ward No.8 Near Puran Bijli Office, Maur Mandi, Dist. Bathinda ........Complainant Versus 1.Syska Gadget Secure, Office of Leehan Retail Private Limited, 4th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No.80, New Airport Road, Pune-411014, through its Managing Director/Chairman. 2.M/s Bhagwati Telecom, Thana Road, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda, through its Proprietor. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Manpreet Singh, Advocate. Opposite parties: Ex-parte. ORDER Jarnail Singh, Member The complainant Rakesh Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Syska Gadget Secure (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased Samsung mobile handset E-5 for Rs.14,900/- vide bill/invoice dated 12.9.2015 from opposite party No.2. At that time, opposite party No.2 asked the complainant to get his mobile handset insured with opposite party No.1 against fire, allied perils snatching, damages, theft, accidental physical damage, fluid and water damage etc. Opposite party No.2 also assured the complainant that in case of any damage of the mobile handset or theft, snatching, he himself will get the claim of insurance passed and paid from opposite party No.1. The complainant being allured by opposite party No.2, opted to get his mobile handset insured with opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 vide CIN No.1608203783 and coupon code No.15695756. After payment of insurance premium online, the insurance particulars were downloaded by opposite party No.2 online from the website of opposite party No.1 and handed over to the complainant. It is alleged that on 19.8.2016, the complainant was talking on his mobile handset while standing outside his shop at Maur Mandi and his face was towards his shop. At that relevant time, two unknown persons came on the bike and snatched the mobile handset of the complainant from his hand and pushed him. Due to this, he fell on the ground and unknown persons ran away from the spot on the bike while taking away the mobile handset. The complainant lodged the complaint with the police of PS Maur Mandi on 20.8.2016 on the printed proforma. He also lodged the claim with opposite parties for payment of the price of the mobile handset and submitted the copy of the complaint lodged with the police of P.S Maur. Opposite party No.2 gave assurance to the complainant that he will get the claim passed from opposite party No.1 and insurance amount claim will be deposited in his bank account within few days. Thereafter the complainant time and again approached opposite parties for payment of the insurance claim i.e. price of the mobile handset, but they have been postponing the matter on one or other pretext. He has also got issued legal notice dated 20.4.2017 through his counsel, but to no response. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. He has claimed Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation in addition to insurance claim of Rs.14,900/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them. Complainant was asked to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 23.1.2017, (Ex.C1); photocopy of invoice, (Ex.C2); photocopy of current status, (Ex.C3); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C4); postal receipt, (Ex.C5); photocopy of insurance scratch card, (Ex.C6); photocopy of police information letter, (Ex.C7) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. The complainant has purchased one mobile handset for Rs.14,900/- from opposite party No.2 on 12.9.2015. Ex.C2, proves this fact. Opposite party No.1 made the insurance of the mobile handset in question. As per complainant, his mobile handset was snatched by some unknown persons and he lodged the claim with opposite party No.1, but till date he has not received the claim amount. The complainant himself has brought on record copy of current status of his claim as Ex.C3. This document shows that an amount of Rs.7350/- was approved by opposite party No.1, but this amount has not been given to him till date. Therefore, opposite party No.1 has unnecessary delayed in paying the claim to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 has not come to this Forum to contest the claim of the complainant. Therefore, the evidence of the complainant is un-rebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.1 and dismissed qua opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.7350/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 12.6.2017 till realization, to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. As there is shortage of postal stamps, parties can also collect the copy of order personally/through counsel against receipt. File be consigned to the record room. Announced:- 27-02-2018 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
