BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.165 of 2017

Date of Instt. 25.05.2017

Date of Decision: 14.11.2017

Pranav Handa S/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar Handa R/o 7-A, Kot Lakhpat Rai, Patel Chowk, Jalandhar

..........Complainant

Versus

1. The Unicom India Pvt. Ltd, SCO 4, PUDA Complex, Ladhewali Road, Jalandhar through its Managing Director.

2. The Manager, The Unicom India Pvt. Ltd. SCO 4, PUDA Complex, Ldhewali Road, Jalandhar

..….…Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Gurvinder Arora, Adv Counsel for the complainant.

OP No.1 and 2 exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he has purchased one mobile phone of Samsung make model SM-J210 F bearing IEMI N.352602/08/114846/9 and 352602/08/114846/9 from the Mobile Hut in the month of November, 2016 and got insured the same from the OPs, who is liable for all claims. That on 23.01.2017, the mobile display was damaged due to accidental`fall on the floor and the complainant took it to the Samsung Service Centre and where it was checked from their experts, who told that the LCD display panel of the mobile has been damaged and also gave the estimate of the LCD new display about 5000/-. The complainant on the next day of the incident, made a complaint at customer care number of the OP No.1 and got the claim ID No.1USS1701215 and also submitted the required documentation as required from the OP No.1, which was received through email. However, the OP has refused to give claim to the complainant causing utmost harassment, inconvenience and financial loss to the complainant.

2. That the OP has rendered themselves liable for deficiency in services and they have also indulged in unfair trade practice since the claim of the complainant was within time and the insurance was valid on the day of damage to the phone and the refusal on their part to disburse the claim of the complainant is illegal and against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant is practicing lawyer and due to non availability of the mobile phone, he got financial loss, due to reason he could not contact his client, relations, friends and thereby suffered huge mental tension, harassment and financial loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,05,000/- with regard to damage caused to the phone amounting to Rs.5000/- and compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and deficiency in service.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service both the OPs did not come present and ultimately, they were proceeded against exparte.

4. In order to prove his exparte claim, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the exparte evidence.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6. After considering the entire circumstances as put before us by the learned counsel for the complainant and accordingly, we find that the factum in regard to purchase of the mobile by the complainant from the Mobile Hut is established from the invoice dated 29.08.2016, photostat copy of the same is available on the file as Ex.C1 and further in order to establish that LCD Display Panel of the mobile phone has been damaged, the complainant got it checked from the service centre of the OPs, who after checking gave an estimate of the loss, vide detail report, photostat copy of the damage report is available on the file Ex.C4 and as per damage report, the cost of the mobile LCD display panel is about Rs.4825/- including VAT Tax, Service Tax and Labour Charges and accordingly, on the basis of aforesaid estimate of damages, the complainant submitted an incident report on Form 2C and copy of the same is Ex.C3 and also filed a claim on Form 1C and the copy of the same is Ex.C2, but the claim of the complainant has not been paid by the OP rather with held the same without any reason and rhyme.

7. As the case of the complainant is not controverted by the OP by appearing despite service, so it means that the version of the complainant is established from the documents as well as affidavit of the complainant and as such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed in the Prayer Clause and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is exparte partly accepted and OPs are directed to pay the exact damages amount of the LCD display panel of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.4809/- as mentioned in the claim form Ex.C2 and further OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant for harassment to the tune of Rs.1000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

14.11.2017 Member President