DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 590/2016
D.No._______________ Dated:________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIPEEN KUMAR S/o SH. SHYAM LAL,
R/o P-7/112, MANGOL PURI,
DELHI-110083. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. SAMSUNG (SERVICE CENTRE),
(THROUGH THE MANAGER),
E-1/3, SEC.-7, ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
2. APPS DAILY SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,
(SERVICE CENTRE/INSURANCE COMPANY),
SHOP No.-65, VIKASPURIA BUILDINGS,
MANGLAM PLACE, SECTOR-3, NEAR M2K,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.… OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution:09.06.2016
Date of decision: 12.11.2018
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased a Samsung mobile handset bearing model no. SM-G928G of Rs.56,163/- vide invoice no.
CC No. 590/2016 Page 1 of 6
SPKAML/01077/2015 dated 13.09.2015 from International ValueRetail (P) Ltd., Shop No. 4/1, Block-4, Roop Nagar, Kamla Nagar, Delhi and also purchased insurance policy of the said mobile handset on 14.09.2015 and paid premium of Rs.2,999/- and the insurance period of the mobile handset is for 12 months from the date of sale and insurance pack covers-mobile handset all risks insurance (theft, burglary, physical damage including fluid damage). On 11.04.2016, the said mobile handset was not working, not charging, the mobile handset was completely dead and the complainant approached the authorized service centre i.e. OP-1 for rectification of the mobile handset and OP-1 took the mobile handset for repair but after few hours refused to repair/rectify the mobile handset and gave excuse of liquid damage and asked the complainant to approach OP-2 and as per the direction/suggestion of OP-1, the complainant approached OP-2 on 13.04.2016 for repair/rectify the mobile handset and the complainant approached OP-2 several times but OP-2 did not rectify the mobile handset till filing of this case. The complainant further submitted that the complainant is very much disturbed of this type of attitude of the OPs and due to this the complainant is in very loss and the complainant cannot talk to anyone and the work is suffering very
CC No. 590/2016 Page 2 of 6
much and after giving the mobile handset for rectification to the OPs from 11.04.2016 and the mobile handset is not rectified andthe complainant further alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the price of the mobile handset of Rs.56,163/-, the amount of insurance premium of Rs.2,999/- as well as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and has also sought Rs.15,000/- for litigation cost.
3. None for OP-2 i.e. Apps Daily Solutions (P) Ltd. has appeared despite service of notice and OP-2 has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.09.2016. OP-1 i.e. Samsung (Service Centre) has been contesting the complaint and has filed reply. In the reply OP-1 submitted that the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. OP-1 further submitted that as per the complaint the complainant has purchased the Samsung mobile handset on 13.09.2015 for a sum of Rs.56,163/- from OP-1 in good condition and having full satisfaction with the mobile handset, after purchasing the mobile handset the complainant has also taken an insurance policy on the mobile handset from OP-2 i.e. Apps Daily. OP-1 further submitted
CC No. 590/2016 Page 3 of 6
that the manufacturer only provides 1-year warrantee on the product as per the terms & conditions which does not cover thephysical or liquid damage and further submitted that the complainant has taken the insurance policy from OP-2 to insure his handset. OP-1 further submitted that the mobile handset got liquid damage in April-2016, hence this was out the terms of the warrantee as the liquid damage is not covered within the warrantee term and policy and thus the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. Complainant filed reply/rejoinder and denied the version of OP-1.
5. In order to prove hiscase the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. Thecomplainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice no. SPKAML/01077/2015 dated 13.09.2015 of Rs.56,163/- issued by International Value Retail (P) Ltd., Shop No. 4/1, Block-4, Roop Nagar, Delhi, copy of insurance policy receipt dated 14.09.2015 of Rs.2,999/- issued International Value Retail (P) Ltd., copy of mobile protection (Assurance + Pack-Ultra) issued by OP-2, copy of job sheet dated 11.04.2016 issued by OP-1 and copy of job sheet dated 13.04.2016 issued by OP-2.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Anindya BoseAuthorized Representative of OP-1 filed her affidavit in evidence which is as per defence taken by
CC No. 590/2016 Page 4 of 6
OP-1 in the reply. OP-1 also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant as well asOP-1 in the light of evidence and documents placed on record. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and cannot be doubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. It is revealed that the complainant purchased the mobile handset for Rs.56,163/- alongwith insurance policy of Rs.2,999/-. On perusal of the record, mobile handset suffered liquidated damage which could not be rectified. We accordingly hold OP-2being the insurer of mobile handset guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
8. In these circumstances, this forum is of opinion that the OP-2is guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Thus, holding guilty for the same, we direct OP-2 as under:
i) To refund to the complainant the cost of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.56,163/- and Rs.2,999/- totaling Rs.59,162/- on return of the disputed mobile handset by the complainant.
ii) To pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
CC No. 590/2016 Page 5 of 6
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP-2to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-2 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-2 fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 12thday of November, 2018.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 590/2016 Page 6 of 6
