BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

28^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016

O R D E R

SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant in person under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) to repair or replace the Tablet or refund Rs.6850/- being the cost along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony with interest at 18% per annum and cost of Rs.5,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service.

2.  The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:

On 09.05.2014 complainant purchased a Tablet Swipe Brand, Slash model bearing IMEI No.911325850325381 from OP-1 by paying a sum of Rs.6,850/-.  The bill issued by OP-1 dealer is produced.  At the time of purchase of the Tablet the representative of the company Tec-Protec, Present at OP-1 dealer, advised the complainant to take insurance for the Tablet and assured the complainant that the insurance covers accidental damage, OP-2 would either repair or replace the handset for the accidental damage. That is the reason complainant took the insurance by paying a sum of Rs.999/-.  On 24.11.2014 the said Tablet accidentally slipped from the complainant’s hand and its screen got cracked.  Complainant went to OP-1 dealer enquiring about the process to claim insurance for the handset but the representative of OP-2 Company was not present on that day.  She waited for an hour.  OP-1 gave the contact number and complainant called OP-2 to claim insurance.  She was asked to sign and submit the claim form.  Accordingly complainant submitted the claim form.                               Later on she was informed that her claim was not honored and copy of the terms and conditions was given to her.  When complainant enquired customer service executive as to why her claim was rejected, she replied stating she don’t know the reason.  The mobile device protection registration form does not state any terms and conditions and it simply states that customers can make a claim for accidental damage subject to terms and conditions.  Hence, complainant checked in the website of OP, but it did not have the same terms which was sent to the complainant.  Further terms stated that accidental damage can be claimed for devices under 10 months old and Tablet of complainant is only 6 months old.  If complainant had known that it does not cover any type of accidental damage she would not have taken the insurance cover.  Complainant having two small kids, had very difficult time to run from pillar to post to get the insurance amount due to her by wasting time and energy.  Hence, complainants felt deficiency in service against OP.  Under the circumstances, she is advised to file this complaint against OPs for appropriate relief.

3.  After registration of the complaint, notice was issued to             OPs 1 & 2.  Inspite of service of notice OPs remained absent without sufficient reason or cause.  Hence OPs are placed exparte and posted the case for filing affidavit of the complainant.

4.  So as to prove her case, Smt.Devika Bopanna, who being the complainant filed her affidavit evidence by way of evidence in support of the complaint reiterating the complaint averments and also filed written arguments. 

5. The above said assertions of the complainant have remained unchallenged. OPs neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant.  So under the circumstances, we have no reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.

6.  We have perused the documents produced by the complainant.  Document No.1 is copy of a bill issued by OP-1 dealer for having sold the Tablet to the complainant on 09.05.2014 for a sum of RS.6,850/-.  Document No.2 is also a bill issued by OP-1 to the complainant for having purchased mobile device protect for a sum of Rs.999/- on 09.05.2014.  Document No.3 is power shield Registration form issued by OP 1 & 2, terms imposed by Oriental insurance Company Ltd., along with terms and conditions.  Document No.4 is mail sent by OP-2 dated 12.09.2014 repudiating the claim of the complainant.  Document No.5 and 6 are copies of reply mails of the complainant stating failing to resolve the issue complainant will approach the consumer court.  Document No.7 is also mail dated 28.11.2014 wherein OP apologies for the inconvenience caused and offers to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of the complainant.

7. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence of the complainant, it is made crystal clear that the complainant purchased Tablet from OP-1 dealer, manufactured by OP-2 Company on 09.05.2014 by paying a sum of Rs.6,850/- as per document No.1 & 2 the bill issued by OP-1.  OP-2 has also issued insurance cover as per document No.3 and has received Rs.999/- from the complainant stating accidental damages covered under the power shield. On 24.01.2014 the said tablet accidentally slipped and screen got cracked.  Complainant claimed insurance, same was rejected as per Document No.4 to 7 email correspondences.  Hence, this complaint.

8. From the available materials on record it is clear that Tablet supplied by OP-1 and manufactured by OP-2 is covered by mobile device protection annual capper cover upto Rs.8,500/- per annum for devices less than 10 months old including accidental damage, as per Document No.3 power shield.  Admittedly, the mobile Tablet is accidentally damaged within 9 months.  OP-1 has collected Rs.999/- towards mobile device protection as per Document No.2.  In the email dated 28.11.2014 OPs have assured the complainant to solve the issue to the satisfaction of the complainant but inspite of repeated email correspondences OP 1 & 2 have failed to solve the issue and made the complainant to approach this Forum by wasting her money, time and energy.  The act of OPs in not honouring her legitimate claim amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  We are satisfied that complainant proved deficiency in service against OPs.  Under the circumstances OPs are liable to refund Rs.6,850/- being the cost of handset  within 30 days from date of receipt of this order failing which to refund the said amount along with interest at 9% per annum from date of repudiation of claim i.e., 12.09.2014 till realization and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

                                  O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. 

2. OP 1 & 2 are jointly and severally shall refund a sum of Rs.6,850/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which to refund the said amount along with interest at 9% per annum from 12.09.2014 till realization and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.

3. After receipt of the above amount from OPs, complainant is directed to return the said Tablet to OP-1.

4. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28^th day of January 2016)

 MEMBER                           MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

NRS* 

C.C.No.2071/2014

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 05.03.2015

1. Smt.Devika Bopanna

OPs – Absent

MEMBER                           MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

NRS*