BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE: 29th April 2016
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 31/2016
Complainant/s: Gangadhar V.Puranik,
Age: 51 years, Occ: Service, R/o.No.9, Trinity Layout, Surabhi Nagar, Gokul Road, Hubli, Dist.Dharwad.
(By Sri.V.K.Savadi, Adv)
v/s
Respondent/s:
- The Manager/Authorised Signatory, Reliance Retail Ltd., Central Building, P.B.Road, Vidyanagar, Hubballi 580021.
(By Sri.B.S.Hoskeri, Adv)
- The Manager/Authorised Signatory, Regd. Office, Reliance Corporate Park, Building #4, Wing C, Ground Floor, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai 400701.
(Exparte)
- The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co., 1st Floor, Sujata Complex, P.B.Road, Hubli 580029.
(By Sri.R.H.Kulkarni, Adv.)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to refund the laptop amount of Rs.42,753/- with 12% interest p.a., from the date of purchase till realization and to pay Rs.25,000/- compensation towards mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant purchased Lenovo laptop G-5070 on 31.05.2015 bearing product Sl.No.1S59436417YD06724642 for Rs.42,753/- from the respondent.1. The said laptop was purchased for the purpose of usage by children of the complainant for education purpose. At the time of purchase the respondent 1 assured the said laptop will be insured with respondent 3 against theft & damages etc., assuring if any theft or damages would occurred the amount will be paid and had received an amount of Rs.1700/- towards the insurance premium. Accordingly respondent 1 has issued insurance certificate on 31.05.2015. Meanwhile after some days the said laptop got damaged the complainant visited Lenovo service center at Hubli. The service center person told, the laptop found physically damaged on LCD and the said damages do not cover under the normal warranty and issued certificate to that effect. On 06.11.2015 Lenovo service center sent e-mail to the complainant’s son in laws e-mail ID stating that cost of repair is Rs.6890/- + tax. Then the complainant’s son in law communicated to respondent 3 on 09.11.2015 through e-mail of the grievance explaining the coverage of the insurance. On 10.11.2015 respondent 3 replied insurance was not punched by the respondent 1 in complainant’s invoice to cover valid insurance coverage and directed to approach respondent 1 for further clarification to resolve the problem. Thereafter the respondent 1 issued confirm letter dtd.01.11.2015 admitting they have not entered insurance in the bill. Despite of repeated approached the problem was not solved and resolved by the respondent which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.
3. In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent.1 and 2 appeared. Despite service of notice respondent.2 remained absent, placing exparte, exparte proceedings initiated against respondent.2.
4. The respondent.1 admits written version contending that the complaint is false, vexatious and not maintainable either in law or on facts and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Further the answering respondent protest the complaint on the grounds that the facts have not been properly placed & pleaded and not approached the Forum with clean hands. Hence, complainant is not entitled for reliefs and prays for dismissal of the complaint. While the respondent admits the purchase of laptop, while denied the payment of Rs.1,700/- towards premium. While the answering respondent denied the assurance given by him as pleaded in the complaint and also denied the coverage of the insurance stating, those are unaware to the answering respondent. Further denying the liability puts the complainant to strict proof of the complaint averments and liability of the respondent under the warranty and also coverage of the risk under the policy as on the assurance of the answering respondent. In total the answering respondent denying and disputing the liability, deficiency in service prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The respondent 3 also admits the written version taking contention as lined and averred by the respondent.1. Further the answering respondent denied all the liability contending that the answering respondent has not issued any policy and respondent.1 have not punched on the policy as such the answering respondent exonerated from the liability and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Both the parties admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents. Heard. Perused the records.
Finding on points I s as under.
1. Affirmatively
2. Accordingly
3. As per order
R E A S O N S
P O I N T S 1 & 2
7. On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, that the complainant had purchased the Lenovo laptop in question manufactured by the respondent.2 from the respondent.1.
8. Now the question to be determined is, whether the laptop in question covered under the policy of the respondent.3 and alleged damages covered under the risk, non settlement of the amount amounts to a deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.
9. Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition.
10. By looking into the Ex.C1 bill it is evident that the complainant purchased laptop in question manufactured by respondent 2 through respondent.1. By looking into the Ex.C2 it is evident that at the time of purchase of laptop the respondent.1 along with Ex.C1 issued Ex.C2 theft & accident damages certificate. By perusal of Ex.C3 service report reveals that the laptop in question is suffering from the damages on the LCD due to the physical damages and as per endorsement in Ex.C3 the said damage is not covered under normal warranty. The complainant also produced Lenovo safety, warranty set up guide. Under the head, what this warranty does not cover 8 items have been mentioned which oust the warranty. Further perusal of Ex.C13 i.e. warranty guide the laptop covers warranty for a year. As per the bill the complainant purchased laptop on 31.05.2015. Ex.C3 service report Ex.C3 e-mail transaction dtd.11.06.2015 reveals, within a month from the date of purchase the device has been damaged. Ex.C7 the certificate issued by respondent 1 reveals that the device has been insured by the complainant through respondent.1 but, the same is not punched on the policy of the respondent.3. As per the policy the noted defects in Ex.C3 is covers under the policy, though the said defect not covered under warranty conditions of Ex.C13. While the respondent 1 admits the complainant had insured the same with the respondent 3 but due to non punching there is no coverage of risk under the policy by the respondent.3. Once it is assured and premium received by respondent 1 it is the bounden duty of respondent 1 to see that the policy to be punched as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.1. The very prayer of the complainant is that due to physical damages black spot is appearing on LCD monitor and it is not due to manufactural defect and also there are no grievances from the complainant with regard to other defects or other sufferings in the laptop. It could be set right by replacing the particular part/unit. Under those circumstances by the records it is evident that the laptop had been damaged due to physical damage as the respondent 1 had assured the coverage of the risk and as he had received the premium the respondent 1 on his own risk to set right the defects by replacing the damaged parts with free of charges. By the documents Ex.2 & 3 and Ex.C7 the complainant has established his case of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents as such the complainant is entitled for the reliefs.
11. In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in affirmatively and accordingly .
12. Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed in part against the respondent 1 and 2. While the complaint is dismissed against respondent.3. It is directed respondent.1 and 2 jointly and severally to set right the defects by replacement of the parts free of cost along with Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same within stipulated period the respondent shall replace new one or otherwise to refund the entire amount under Ex.C1 along with interest @9% P.A. from the date of order till realization
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 29th day of April 2016)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
MSR
