Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/300/2017

Mrs Sartaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syska LED Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

A K Maleri, Adv.

06 Dec 2017

ORDER

   STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	300 of 2017
Date of Institution	04.12.2017
Date of Decision	06.12.2017

Mrs.Sartaj wife of Shri Hafeez Ahmed resident of 1593/1, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh

                                        …..Appellant/Complainant

                                Versus

1. Syka (in fact ‘Syska’) LED Pvt. 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.

                            …..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. A.K.Maleri, Advocate for the appellant/ Complainant.  

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.10.2017, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint bearing No.383 of 2017.

2.           The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a mobile phone of Apple 5S 16 GB bearing IMEI 355673072882173 for a sum of Rs.22,500/-  from Opposite Party No.2 vide bill (Annexure C-1). It was stated 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 Opposite Party 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 set.  The complainant immediately approached Opposite Party No.2,  who in turn advised her to lodge the complaint with Opposite Party No.1, which is authorized service/claim centre of M/s Syska Gadget.  It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 after physical 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 from the date of its purchase i.e. upto 16.11.2017. It was further stated that non-settlement of the claim amounted to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.           After issuance of notice to the Opposite Parties, initially Sh.T.S.Hundal, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 on 06.06.2017 but thereafter, none appeared on its behalf. Hence, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.09.2017.

4.           Opposite Party No.2 did not appear, despite service. Hence, Opposite Party No.2 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.06.2017.

5.           The complainant led evidence, in support of her case.

6.           After hearing Counsel for the complainant and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 

7.           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.           We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.           Counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that the Forum has grossly erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties, as the Forum has failed to appreciate that the appellant/complainant purchased mobile phone from Opposite Party No.2 on 16.11.2016 for the sum of Rs.22,500/- and the same was insured by Opposite Party No.2 only through an arrangement made with M/s Syska Gadget Secure, who also issued unscratched insurance card. He further submitted that there is no address of the aforesaid company i.e. M/s Syska Gadget Secure on the insurance card and, as such, the complainant has failed to implead the said Company before the Forum. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties had failed to repair or replace the mobile, which was comprehensively insured for accidental physical damage for one year, for which, the appellant/complainant was entitled to the claims set-in-forth in the complaint. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order. 

10.          After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

11.          Annexure C-1 is a copy of bill dated 16.11.2016. From this document, it is proved that the complainant purchased Apple 5S 16 GB Mobile handset in the sum of Rs.22,500/- from Sahni Mobile Centre (Opposite Party No.2). A bare perusal of Annexure C-2 clearly proves that the said document was issued by Syska Gadget Centre but in the complaint, before the Forum, the complainant impleaded Syska LED Private Limited as a party. So, it is clearly proved that there is no concern of both the companies i.e. Syska Gadget Centre & Syska LED Private Limited. The plea of the appellant/complainant that there was no address of the company i.e. M/s Syska Gadget Secure on the insurance card and, as such, the complainant failed to implead the same, has no value, at all because it is the duty of the complainant to check the full address of the insurance company at the time of purchase of the mobile handset & taking insurance.  It is pertinent to note that no particulars regarding mobile handset were mentioned in the said card. The appellant/complainant stated that the Opposite Parties had failed to repair or replace the mobile, which was comprehensively insured for accidental physical damage for one year, for which, the appellant/complainant was entitled to the claims set-in-forth in the complaint, has no value at all because the accidental claim is also not covered in the General Instructions of Annexure C-2 as it is clearly mentioned that “SYSKA takes no responsibility for theft, misuse or loss.” So, we are of the view that the Forum has rightly observed in paras No.6 & 7 while passing the impugned order, which reads thus :-

“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.”   

 Hence, the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

12.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.

13.          Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.          The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                           Sd/-

06.12.2017             [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

rb