BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 790 of 2017

Date of Institution: 1.11.2017

Date of Decision: 6.2.2019 

Shri Sukhwinder Singh son of  Sh. Satbir Singh aged about 29 years, resident of Kirtangarh, Thandey, PO Fathapur, Chabhal Road,  Amritsar 9592668873

Complainant

Versus

1. Syska Gadget Secure, through Leehan Retails Pvt.Ltd., through its Partner/Proprietor/any other authorized officer, 4, SSK Saphire Plaza, Pune, Airport  Road, Near Symbiosis College, Pune 411014
2. M/s. Talwar Enterprises, through its Partner/Proprietor, shop No.2, Golden Market, Near  Chowk Shastri Market, Amritsar

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 & 13  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant : Sh.S.S.Mehndiratta, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party  No.2: Sh.Amandeep  Singh,Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.1 : Ex-parte

Coram:

Sh.Charanjit Singh, President

Mr.Anoop Sharma,  Member        

Ms.Rachna Arora, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Charanjit Singh,  President

1.  Sukhwinder Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  on the allegations that  has purchased one  Samsung Galaxy J7 mobile having IMEI No. 359473072360411 from opposite party No.2 vide invoice No. 1959 dated 2.8.2016 for a sum of Rs. 16500/-. The complainant also purchased Syska Gadget Secure for the aforesaid mobile from opposite party No.2 under which the said mobile phone of the complainant was insured with opposite party No.1 for all kind of risks. On 29.10.2016 at about 12.00 p.m. the  complainant was standing near Bus Stand,Amritsar and he was attending a phone call on his aforesaid mobile phone and at the same time one auto struck into the complainant from backside due to which the complainant fell down  while the mobile phone of the complainant was in his right hand and due to which the said mobile phone has been broken. The complainant  immediately approached the opposite party No.1 and lodged claim  with opposite party No.1 . Thereafter the complainant many a times visited the opposite party No.1  and also communicated with opposite parties through various e-mails  but all the times opposite party No.1 had been assuring the complainant that  his insurance claim will be released to him very shortly.  On internet site of the opposite party No.1, status of claim of the complainant always shows “pending for customer payment”. The said accident was occurred on 29.10.2016 and almost one year has been elapsed but opposite party No.1 has not released the claim amount to the complainant. The aforesaid act of the opposite party No.1 amounts to deficiency in service. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

1. Opposite party be directed to pay the claim amount to the tune of Rs. 16500/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. till the actual realization ;
2. Compensation to the tune of  Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 11000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that no privity of contract between the complainant and replying opposite party with regard  to the insurance of the mobile phone as the privity of contract is only between the complainant and Insurance company i.e. opposite party No.1. The complaint is barred by limitation. The mobile was purchased on 2.8.2016 and the present complaint was filed on 14.11.2017. Thus the complaint is not filed within limitation and is barred by limitation . The replying opposite party has no concern with the insurance of the mobile by opposite party No.1. The complainant himself admitted that the mobile was insured with opposite party No.1  and as such opposite party is only liable for damage of any kind of risk claimed in this complaint. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3.       In his bid to prove the case Sh.S.S.Mehndiratta,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Awardeep Singh,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of  Sh.Vinod Kumar Talwar, Prop.Ex.OP2/A, copy of bill dated 2.8.2016 Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.

5.       We have heard the Ld.counsel for the complainant as well as opposite party No.2 and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

6.       From the perusal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased one Samsung Galaxy J7  from Opposite Party No.2 vide bill No.1959 dated 2.8.2016 for a sum of Rs.16,500/-, copy of bill accounts for Ex.C2. The complainant  got insured  the abovesaid mobile handset from opposite party No.1 against any defect/damage to the said handset  . It was the case of the complainant that on 29.10.2016 at about 12.00 p.m. when he was standing near Bus Stand, Amritsar and attending a phone call on his aforesaid mobile phone and at the same time one auto struck into the complainant from backside due to which the complainant fell down  while the mobile phone of the complainant was in his right hand and due to which the said mobile phone has been broken. As the mobile handset of the complainant was fully insured with opposite party No.1 against any defect, as such the complainant lodged claim with opposite party No.1, copy of claim form is Ex.C-4 on record. But the opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim of the complainant inspite of writing so many mails to the opposite party No.1 and the status of claim of the complainant always shows “Pending for customer payment”.  On the other hand opposite party No.1 with whom the complainant got insured his mobile handset has made itself ex-parte and the  evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record .In this way, the Opposite Party No.1 has impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Party No.1  has no defence to dislodge the complaint. In our considered opinion, complainant has proved on record the allegations made in the complaint against opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 under legal obligation to indemnify the loss of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 16,500/- i.e. price of the insured mobile hand set . As no allegation against opposite party No.2 have been proved on record, as such no liability can be fastened upon opposite party No.2.

7.       In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the claim amount of Rs. 16500/- to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay litigation expenses  to the tune of Rs. 2000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order ; failing which , complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum.  Complaint against opposite party No.2  fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed against opposite party No.2 . Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.