Delhi

East Delhi

CC/30/2014

NITIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

TELETALK - Opp.Party(s)

06 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 30/14

Shri. NITIN JAIN

S/O LATE SHRI SURESH CHANDRA JAIN

R/O H.NO. 71

SAINI ENCLAVE,

DELHI-110092                                                                                             ….Complainant

•  

 

1. TELE TALK

THROUGH IT MANAGER/A.R/PROPERIETOR

SHOP/OFFICE AT R-50 MANGLAM BUILDING

VIKAS MARG, SHAKARPUR

1.  

 

2. SONY INDIA

THROUGH IT’S A.R/MANAGER/M.D.

REGISTERED OFFICE NORTH

A-31, MOHAN CO-PERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

MATHURA ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110044                                                                                   ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 09.01.2014

Judgment Reserved for: 06.04.2017

Judgment Passed on: 10.04.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

1. This complaint has been filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by Shri Nitin Jain against Tele Talk (OP-1) and Sony India (OP-2), praying for directions to OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in services and indulging in unfair trade practice, Rs.30,000/- as refund of insurance claim amount, Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and cost of litigation as Rs.15,000/-.
2. The facts in brief are that on 02/12/2012 complainant purchased a mobile handset Sony Xperia Model LT-28h ION from OP-1 (the Authorized Dealer) for Rs.30,000/- vide invoice no. 2012-2013/4031. It is stated that the complainant was informed that there was  free of cost insurance which was duly endorsed on the invoice. On 16/07/2013, the said handset was stolen from the car of the complainant for which NCR was registered in Police Station Shakarpur and OP-2 was duly informed. When the complainant filed the claim with OP-1, he was asked to submit their copy of the insurance. The said policy cover note was not provided to the complainant. Thus, the complainant has alleged deficiency in services and unfair trade practice against OP-1 & OP-2 as they have failed to settle the genuine claim of the complainant. The complainant has annexed the copy of the retail invoice dated 02/12/2012, complaint to Police Station Shakarpur dated 16/07/2013, and letter to OP-1 dated 17/11/2013 alongwith tracking report with the complaint.
3. OPs were served with the notice of the present complaint. Thereafter OP-2 filed the reply wherein they stated that there was no deficiency in services or indulgence in unfair trade practice on their part, as the claim of the insurance was a contract between the complainant and OP-1, they prayed for deletion of their name. They also stated that OP-2 does not provide any insurance for the mobile phone and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The power of attorney was annexed with their reply.
4. The complainant examined himself for filing evidence by way of affidavit wherein he exhibited CW1/1-copy of the invoice, Ex. CW1/2-NCR and reiterated the contents of the complaint.
5. OP-2 examined Shri Prayank Chauhan (AR for OP) who deposed the contents of reply on oath and exhibited board resolution as Ex. OPW1/1.
6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for the  OP-2. However, none has appeared on behalf of OP-1 despite service, thus they were proceeded ex-parte.  Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant has not alleged that there was any manufacturing defect in the handset, the dispute is only with respect to the insurance. Ex. CW1/1 which is the invoice bears endorsement “FOC insurance” which was issued by OP-1, the Retailer who has thereby induced the complainant to purchase the handset by promising free of cost insurance. Hence, we hold OP-1 responsible of unfair trade practice, firstly by not providing the details of insurance policy & secondly by not processing the claim. Thus, OP-1 is directed to refund Rs.27,000/- (Rs.3,000/- less 10% depreciation as the handset was used for 7 months). We also direct OP-1 to pay Rs.7,500/- as compensation for mental agony and pain. This shall be inclusive of litigation expenses. If the said order is not complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, then OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on Rs.34,500/- (27,000+7,500) @ 7% per annum from the dated of order till realization

 

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

(P.N. TIWARI)                                                               (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

   MEMBER                                                                                        MEMBER

 

                                                     (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                        PRESIDENT