Punjab

Sangrur

CC/329/2017

Karamdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The National Time - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sukhvinder Singh

01 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  329

                                                Instituted on:    13.07.2017                                                      

                                                Decided on:       01.11.2017

 

 

 

Karamdeep Singh Kahal son of S. Bent Singh (Retd District Attorney) R/O Near Railway Station Chowk, Railway Road, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

 

                                Versus

 

1.     The National Time (showroom of Mobile and watch), Court Road, Sangrur through its Prop/Partner.

2.     Syska Gadget Secure, 4^th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No.80, S. No.232, New Airport Road, Near Symbiosis College, Sakore Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra-411014 through its MD/Authorised Signatory.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Sukhwinder Pal, Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri Ramandeep Singh, Adv.

For OP No.2             :       Exparte.

 

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Karamdeep Singh Kahal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one mobile set make Oppo F1S gold from OP number 1 and the same was got insured with the OP number 2 after purchasing the SYSKA GADGET Kit (Bar No.69315723) for Rs.1799/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that when on 17.2.2017, he was going from his house on a bike as a pillion rider, all of a sudden, a car came in front of the bike and due to this the complainant and his friend along with bike fell down on the road, as a result of which the complainant suffered injuries and the mobile screen along with touch pad  of the insured mobile set got damaged.  The matter was immediately brought to the notice of OP number 2 and the claim was submitted on 17.2.2017 and further submitted the photographs of damaged mobile, bills etc, but the OP number 2 repudiated the claim of the complainant bearing number 1702172786 on the ground that there is a cutting in the date of invoice/bill number 7781 dated 31.8.2016.  It is further averred that the complainant got repaired the mobile set in question from Pace Tel Systems Pvt. Ltd. Patiala by paying the requisite amount of Rs.3215/-, but the Ops did not pay the said amount.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.3516/- along with interest @ 24% per annum and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 2 did not appear despite service, as such, OP number 2 was proceeded exparte on 25.8.2017.

 

3.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OP number 1,  preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation and that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased a Syska Gadget Kit and mobile from the OP and the OP issued bill dated 31.8.2016 for the same.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and Ex.OP1/2 copy of invoice dated 23.5.2016 and closed evidence.

 

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party number 1, evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the insurance policy of OP number 2 through OP number 1 for his mobile Oppo F1S Gold by paying the requisite premium of Rs.1799/- for the period from 31.8.2016 to 30.8.2017.  It is also an admitted case between the complainant and OP number 1 that the mobile set in question damaged during the subsistence of the insurance policy on 17.2.2017 and intimation of which was given to the OP number 2 and the complainant also sent the copies of the documents such as Ex.C-2 copy of the bill of the mobile, Ex.C-3 copy of the insurance kit for Rs.1799/-,  Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 copies of claim forms and Ex.C-6 self declaration, but the OP number 2 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide Ex.C-8.  No cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence has been produced on record by OP number 2 to show that why the claim of the complainant has been rejected, more so when he has paid the premium for covering the mobile set in question.  As such, the complainant was compelled to get repaired the mobile set in question from Pace Tel Systems Private Limited, Patiala by spending an amount of Rs.3516/-, as is evident from the copy of the bill Ex.C-9.  We may mention that the OP number 2 chose to remain exparte, nor, the OP number 2 has produced iota of evidence to show why the claim of the complainant has been rejected.  Since the mobile set in question suffered damage during the subsistence of the insurance policy, as such, we feel that the OP number 2 is liable to make the loss good on account of loss suffered by the mobile set.  As such, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the Op number 2 is directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.3516/-.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3516/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 13.7.2017 till realisation. We further direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- in lieu of litigation expenses. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        November 1, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member