Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/383/2017

Mrs. Sartaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syska LED Private Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

A.K. Maleri Adv.

10 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	383/2017
Date of Institution	:	28.04.2017
Date of Decision	:	10.10.2017

 

                                                

                                                         

Mrs.Sartaj w/o Sh.Hafeez Ahmed r/o 1593/1, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.       Syska Led Private Ltd., SCO No.109, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh through its Authorized Person.

 

2.       Sahni Mobile Centre, SCF No.36, Sector 28-C, Chandigarh through its Authorized Person.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:     SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh.A.K.Maleri, Adv. for the complainant

                     OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the facts of the case as alleged by the complainant are that she purchased a mobile phone vide invoice dated 16.11.2016 for Rs.22,500/-. It was alleged that the said mobile phone was comprehensively insured for one year through M/s Syska Gadget Secure and the complainant was issued the insurance card bearing INS 2999-74220907 by OP No.2.  According to the complainant, on 07.02.2017, the mobile phone fell from her hands while climbing the stairs as a result thereof, the screen of the same was badly damaged and “total loss” was caused to the mobile phone.  She immediately approached OP No.2  who in turn advised her to lodge the complaint with OP No.1, which is authorized service/claim centre of M/s Syska Gadget.  It was alleged that OP No.1 after examination of the mobile phone refused to entertain the complaint and returned it without repairs despite the fact that the same was insured for one year. It has further been averred that the non-settlement of the claim amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Initially, Sh.T.S.Hundal, Advocate on behalf of the OP No.1 put in appearance on 06.06.2017 and thereafter the case was adjourned for filing reply and evidence on behalf of OP  No.1 to 06.07.2017, 10.08.2017, 01.09.2017 and 27.09.2017.  On the date fixed i.e. 27.09.2017, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 despite repeated calls and as such it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
3.           Despite due service through registered post, OP No.2 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.06.2017.
4.           We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and gone through the documentary evidence on record.
5.           After going through the documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.  Annexure C-1 is a copy of the invoice regarding the purchase of the mobile phone.   
6.           However, from Annexure C-2, it is not proved at all that as to whether the mobile phone in question was insured with Syska Gadget Secure as no particulars of the mobile phone in question finds mentioned therein.  It is also not evident from the alleged complaint (Annexure C-3) that as to when and with whom the complainant had made the said complaint/claim and as to whether the same relates to the mobile phone in question or not. The complainant has miserably failed to place on record any documentary evidence regarding the purchase of the insurance policy qua the mobile phone in question.
7.           Besides this, the complaint is also liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of M/s Syska Led Private Ltd.  because OP No.1 has no concern whatsoever with  the controversy in dispute.  Whereas M/s Syska Gadget Secure who is a necessary and proper party to the complaint with whom the mobile phone is alleged to have been insured and who can throw light on the entire aspects of the case and depose about the correctness, has not been made a party to the complaint.   
8.           In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
9.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Sd/-                               sd/-                      sd/-

Announced	[RAVINDER SINGH]	[RAJAN DEWAN]	(PRITI MALHOTRA)
10.10.2017	MEMBER	PRESIDENT	MEMBER