JUDGEMENT<br /> By Sri. Pampapathi President:-<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant Sandeep against the Opposite 1 & 2 Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to replace his mobile hand set or to return price of it with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- with cost and other relief’s. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, he purchased Motorola hand set its Model No. A870IMEI No. 356444020528030 its No. 9448184292 for Rs. 7,499.99/- Ps. on 27-03-09 from opposite No-1 authorized dealer. At the time of the sale of the said hand set, opposite No-1 collected an amount of Rs. 190/- towards premium of the Insurance Policy for coverage of damage, theft etc., without disclosing the name of Insurance Company. After some days of purchase, it developed defects due to water log he requested the opposite No-1 and opposite No-2 Insurance Company for to indemnify the loss sustained by him due to defect in the mobile set both of them have shown their negligence in indemnifying the loss of him, in view of the Insurance amount collected even though it was under warranty period, hence he filed this complaint for the relief’s as prayed in it.<br /> <br /> 3. Opposite No.-1 is placed Ex-parte. Opposite No-2 Insurance Company appeared and filed its written version by contending that there was no privity of contract in between its Insurance Company with complainant, there is no contract in between them for to indemnify the loss said to have sustained by the complainant, it not issued any policy of the mobile as contended by the complainant. All other allegations made by the complainant with regard to filing of claim petition, refusal of the said claim petition are denied. It requested the complainant to furnish details the policy and other informations to find out as to whether it has issued policy are not, but complainant not furnished any informations and thereby there is no deficiency in its service and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.<br /> <br /> 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he purchased Motorola Mobile Set Model No. A870IMEI No. 356444020528030 bearing Phone No. 9448184292 for Rs. 7,499.99/- Ps. from opposite No-1 authorized dealer, which was insured with opposite No-2 Insurance Company, started giving trouble in the warranty period due to water log, it was informed to opposite No-1 & 2 but they shown their negligence in payment of cost of the mobile covered under Insurance policy in spite of this oral and written request and there by both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed in his complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. What order?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> (1) In the affirmative against opposite No-1 and negative against opposite No-2.<br /> (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement.<br /> <br /> (3) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed <br /> to pass the final order for the following :<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> POINT NO.1 & 2:-<br /> <br /> 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Assistant Manager of opposite No-2 was filed, he was noted as RW-1. The document Ex.R-1 is marked.<br /> <br /> 7. It is a fact that, complainant purchased his Mobile bearing No. 9448184292 on 27-03-09 for Rs. 7,499.99/- Ps. from opposite No-1 vide Receipt Ex.P-1 and Battery Receipt vide Ex.P-2. It is also a fact that, opposite No-1 collected premium amount of Rs. 190/- for to indemnify in case of theft or damage of the said mobile. It is the case of complainant that, he filed claim petition on 08-05-09 with opposite No-1 as the said mobile was developed defects, due to water log, he not produced any acknowledgement or other wise to show that he filed claim petition on 08-05-09 with opposite No-1. However opposite No-1 is placed Ex-parte, as such his evidence in that regard is accepted. Now other point for consideration is that, as per pleading at Para No-3 of the complaint, opposite No-1 not disclosed the name of the Insurance Company for coverage of the risk of the said mobile. Ex.P-3 Claim Petition filed by the complainant is in the name of opposite No-2 Insurance Company. The written version of opposite No-2 and affidavit evidence of its Assistant manager discloses that, there is no privity of contract between its insurance company and complainant, it not issued policy for coverage of the risk of complainant’s mobile and it not received any claim form. In the circumstances stated above, we are of the view that, Ex.P-3 is neither policy issued by the opposite No-2 nor it is the claim petition filed before it. Ex.P-1 or Ex.P-3 are no way fastening the liability on opposite No-2, as such we have not accepted the allegation of complainant against opposite No-2 to fix the liability on it.<br /> <br /> 8. Now coming to the case of complainant against opposite No-1. It is the fact that, complainant purchased his hand set from opposite No-1 showroom at Raichur. It is also fact that opposite No-1 received an amount of Rs. 190/- from complainant as insurance premium without showing the name of either opposite No-2 or the name of any other Insurance Company. It is also a fact that, complainant filed claim petition before opposite No-1 after developing defects due to water log, within guarantee period, as such it is clear that opposite No-1 collected insurance amount by not showing the name of Insurance Company, thereafter he shown his negligence in replacement of Mobile, and remained absent in this case which shows his negligence and deficiency in service, accordingly we answered Point No-1.<br /> <br /> 9. As regards to the relief’s claimed by the complainant, first relliefs is for to replace the said Motorola Hand Set of the same Model of the same price by the opposite No-1 which is proper and guanine claim, as such it is granted.<br /> <br /> 10. We have noted the deficiency in service of opposite No-1. Hence complainant is entitled to recover a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- under this head.<br /> <br /> 11. Complainant is also entitled to recover a lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation, accordingly we answered Point No-2. <br /> <br /> POINT NO.3:-<br /> <br /> 12. In view of our finding on Point Nos-1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost against opposite No-1.<br /> <br /> The opposite No-1 is hereby directed to replace the new Motorola Mobile Set bearing Model No. A870IMRI No. 356444020528030 worth of Rs. 7,499.99/- Ps. to the complainant by retaining the old one with in the one month from the date of this judgment.<br /> <br /> The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the Opposite No. 1.<br /> <br /> The complaint against opposite No-2 is dismissed. <br /> <br /> Opposite No-1 is granted one month time to comply the above order from the date of this judgment.<br /> <br /> Intimate the parties accordingly. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 15-01-10)<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi<br /> Member. President, <br /> District Consumer Forum-Raichur District Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />