DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO.03 OF 2021
Sri Asit Kumar sahani- Aged about 38 year
S/O: Kubera Sahani At- Asirisahi(Bhaliapada)
PO/ps- Bisipada sadar thana Dist- Kandhamal. ……………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
1. The Branch Manager
Bajaj Finance Ltd.
Jailroad Amalapada
AT/Po- Phulbani
Dist- Kandhamal
2. Sri Krishna Egency.
Mainroad Phulbani
Near SBI Bank Phulbani
At/po- Phulbani
Dist.- Kandhamal …………………………….. OPP. Parties.
Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra - President.
Sri Sudhakar Senapothi - Member .
For the Complainant : Self
For O.p No.1- None(Exparte)
For O.p No.2 - Self
Date of Argument :30.03.2022
Date of Order: 31-03-2022
JUDGEMENT
Sri Purna Chandra Mishra .President
The Complainant has filed this case Under Section 35 of the C.P Act 2019 alleging deficiency in
service on the part of the opposite parties for not paying the insurance claim of the damaged mobile
during the force of the coverage period and praying there in for a direction to the opposite parties to
pay his insurance claim and to pay compensation for the harassment caused to him.
1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the petitioner had purchased one Oppo mobile from the
shop of O.P. No.2 . For purchasing the handset the petition had a obtained a loan from O.P No.1 & the
mobile was insured by O.P No.1. During force of the coverage period the mobile set was damaged and
as per the advice of O.P No.1, he got his mobile repaired in the service centre of Oppo mobile and made
the insurance claim for insurance from O.P No.1. After submission of all documents the opposite party
No .1 didn’t pay the claim amount even after several requests and misbehaved him for which feeling
harassed, he has filed this complaint petition before this Commission praying therein for a direction to
the opposite parties to pay the insurance claim alongwith compensation for harassment.
2. After issue of notice the O.P No.2 appeared and file his written version. In his written version
the O.p No.2 stated that he has only sold the mobile to the petitioner which was financed by Bajaj
finance Limited. In this case he has no liability and the case be dismissed against him.
3. Notice was issued to the O.P No.1 vide issue No. 21.Dated 15.01.2021 of this Commission From
perusal of record it is seen that the acknowledgement nor the notice sent from this office has not been
returned back by the postal authorities. So it is deemed that the notice has been duly served on O.P
No.1. Inspite of notice served on him he preferred not to appear or challenge the allegations against
him. So it is presumed that the O.P No.1 has admitted the allegations against him.
4. The petitioner in support of his case has filed the copy of the estimate of repair of the customer
service centre and copy of the tax in voice showing payment of cost of repair to the service centre and
has filed his evidence in shape of affidavit.
5. The only question relating to this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the insurance
claim from the opposite parties ?
On perusal of record it is seen that the mobile set has been repaired by the service centre on
payment of Rs.4366.99 towards the cost of repair. The O.P No.1 in his written statement has admitted
that the mobile set in question was financed by O.P No.1.The petitioner in his evidence filed by way of
affidavit has clearly stated that his mobile set was in sured by Bajaj finance Limited. This aspect of the
evidence remains uncontroverted, unchallenged & unrebutted. The O.P No.1 even after receipt of
notice neither appeared nor challenged the allegations raised against him and therefore it is deemed
that the allegations raised against him have been admitted by him.
From the discussions made in the proceeding paragraphs it is crystal clear that the petitioner
has purchased the mobile under loan assistance from O.P No.1 and the mobile set was insured by him
and after damaged of the mobile it was repaired in the service centre but the O.P No.1 avoided to pay
the cost of repair with out just and genuine reason even though the mobile set was insured with him
pay the cost of repair, which amount to deficiency in service and the O.P No.1 is liable to compensate
the loss of the petitioner and harassment caused to him. Hence the order.
ORDER
The complaint petition is allowed ex-parte against O.P No.1 and dismissed against O.p No.2 on
contest. The O.p No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4366.99(Four thousand three hundred sixty six and
Ninety nine) Only towards the cost of repair of the mobile set. The O.p No.1 is further directed to pay a
sum of Rs.20000(Twenty thousand) only towards compensation for deficiency service and harassment
and a sum of Rs.1000 (one thousand)only towards cost of litigation . The order is to be complied with in
a period of 30days from the date of receipt of the order failing which interest at the rate of 12% will be
charged on the whole amount from the date of order till it is actually paid to the petitioner.
Computerized to my dictation and corrected by me.
I Agree
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 31st day of March 2022 in the presence of the parties.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
