Haryana

Panchkula

CC/85/2016

L.M. GULATI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SYSKA RETAILS PVT.LTD AND OTHERS. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

11 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                  

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	85 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	12.04.2016
Date of Decision	:	11.11.2016

                                                                                          

L.M. Gulati, Advocate, son of Shri B.R. Gulati, resident of H. No. 510, Sector-4, Panchkula.  

 

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Syska Retails Pvt. Ltd. 7, Akshay Complex, office at Dhole Patil Road, Pune-411001.

2.       Syska Gadget Secure C/o Parametrics, SCO No. 112-113, Sector-34, Chandigarh.

3.       M/s Ambika Enterprises, SCO 42, Sector-11, Panchkula, through its proprietor/Partner.

                                                                                    …. Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                            

For the Parties:     Mr.Jasleen Kaur, Adv., for the complainant.

                             Mr.N.S.Sidhu, Adv., for the OP no. 1.

Ops No.2 & 3 already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that he had purchased an Apple I-Phone-6 (16GB) vide EMI No. 359313061047498 from OP no. 3, vide Bill No. 56720 dated 23.08.2015 for a sum of Rs. 46,000/-.  At the time of purchase of the mobile, the OP no. 3 told the complainant that the mobile would be secure if he got it insured with the insurance policy of OP no. 1, which was available with the OP no. 3. The OP no. 3 further told the complainant that Syska Gadget Secure i.e insurance policy was the best for mobile and it was also conveyed that if there was 100% loss within 6 months, then the depreciation would be 25 % and in case it was 100% loss within 6 to 12 months, the depreciation would be 50% and in case of partial damage the depreciation would be 0%. After going through the brochure provided by the OP no. 3, the complainant purchased Syska Gadget Secure No. 90550319 vide invoice No. N-4220 dated 23.08.2015 for a sum of Rs. 2399/- (Annexure C-2). On 28.02.2016 at around 3.00 PM, when the complainant was coming down on the stairs because of slip of foot the complainant fell down. The complainant was having the mobile in his pocket. Due to fall from stairs, the mobile phone got partially damaged as the touch screen was damaged and inspite of the said cracks on the screen, the mobile phone was working properly. The complainant informed the Ops no. 1 and 2 on their Toll Free No. 1800-3002-7090 on the same day and registered a complaint vide job card No. 1602285124. The complainant was directed to submit the requisite document i.e copy of the concerned bills, self attested photo ID proof, 3 photographs of the damaged set and the other requisite documents by the Ops no. 1 and 2. The complainant deposited the requisite documents with OP no. 2 on 8.3.2016 and it was conveyed by OP no. 1 that his complaint would be handed soon. After passing many days, on 13.03.2016, the complainant was intimated by the representative of the company namely Mr. Johney to deposit the hand set. The complainant contacted the OP no. 2 on 16.03.2016 at around 4.00 PM and he was asked to come on the next day. Again on 17^th the complainant again requested the OP No.2 for repair of mobile but he was asked that it might take a few days or a month. Then the complainant contacted the representative of the company, who told him to contact one Mr. Sandeep-a representative of the company, sitting in the office of OP no. 2. Again the complainant went to the office of OP no. 2 and contacted Mr. Sandeep but he behaved very rough & disrespectful and asked to deposit 50% of the amount. The complainant requested that it was a case of partial damage as the mobile phone was working properly but the representative-Mr. Sandeep misbehaved with him. Thereafter, the complainant requested the OP no. 3 but to no avail. The complainant issued legal notice to Ops to settle the claim but to no avail. This act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant had purchased the insurance policy  at the time of purchase after reading the terms & conditions of the policy and accepted the same. It is submitted that on 28.02.2016, the complainant informed the OP through toll free number regarding the damaged of handset in question and the complaint was registered by OP no. 1. The Op No.1 requested the complainant to deposit the requisite documents of the headset in question to the OP but he failed to deposit the same with the Ops. It is submitted that the Ops did not receive any legal notice and not liable to pay anything as claimed in the complaint from the conduct and material placed on the record. It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled for any claim or to get any relief claimed therein. It is denied that the complainant never deposited the mobile in question to the OP and never contacted the representative of the OP. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3. Notice was issued to the Ops No.2 and 3  through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Ops No.2 and3. It is deemed to be served and the Ops No.2 and 3 are proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.05.2016.
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A and C-B along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully and minutely and also considered the written arguments submitted by counsel for the OP no. 1.   
6. It requires to be noticed, at the very outset, that the complainant made a categorical affidavit-supported averment in the course of the complaint to the effect that he had served a Legal Notice upon the OPs before filing this complaint. It is also the further averment by the complainant that the OPs did not respond to the Legal Notice.
7. OP No.1 (which only contested the complaint, the other OPs having been proceeded ex-parte) averred in the written statement that the Legal Notice had not “so far received any legal notice”.
8. In support of the averment that the Legal Notice had been dispatched to the OPs by speed-post, the complainant has placed on record the postal receipts in support thereof. The Legal Notice was dated 18.03.2016. The written statement, in denial of the receipt of the Legal Notice, is dated 04.08.2016. It is apparent from the material available on the record that the OP No.1 did not consciously offer a categorical denial about the receipt of the Legal Notice. The frame of the denial indicates an evasive mindset of OP No.1. The assumption, thus, is that OP No.1 (and also the other OPs) did receive the Legal Notice from the complainant but they consciously did not opt to respond to it.             
9. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the complainant did lodge a complaint in the context with the complaint center of the OPs. The only plea taken up by the OPs is that no further action could be taken on the complaint of the complainant as the necessary documentation was not made available by the complainant to them. The denial offered by OP No.1 was controverted by the complainant by filing an affidavit in rebuttal thereof. 
10. In the light of the facts recorded in the course of the preceding para, there is no escape from the conclusion that there is preponderance of evidence in favour of the complainant. The OPs are a brand name of repute and, in the normal course of things, they would have been expected to issue a reminder to the complainant in the context of the grievance already registered with them. The peculiar facts and circumstances indicate that there is veracity in the grievance of the complainant.
11. For the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we would allow this complaint and direct that: -
1.  
2.  
3.  
12. The liability of the OPs to pay the amount of compensation shall be joint and several.
13. The OPs shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to them comes about. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

11.11.2016               ANITA KAPOOR         DHARAM PAL

                                 MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         ANITA KAPOOR

                                                          MEMBER