Haryana

Panchkula

CC/331/2016

SIDHANT JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS ELECTRONICS LTD - Opp.Party(s)

RAJINDER PANDEY

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

Sidhant Jain son of Mr. Manoj Jain resident of House No. 392, 1^st Floor, Sector 9, Panchkula (Through Manoj Jain, Authorized signatory/Constituted Attorney).

                                                                                               ….Complainant

Versus

1.       TVS Electronics Ltd., C/o DHL, 4^th Floor, Plot No. 193-197 and 254-258, 137 & 248-249, Jigani Link Road, Bommasandra, Industrial Area, Bangalore. (Through its Managing Director).

2.       One Assist Consumer Solutions Private Limited, 707-708-709, Acme Plaza, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059, Telephone +912242983000, Corporate Identity Number U93090MH2011PTC218163 (Through its Managing Director).

2^nd Address:

          One Assist Consumer Solutions Private Limited, B-24, Manubharati, Azad Lane, Off S V Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400 058, Corporate Identity Number U93090MH2011PTC218163.

3.       M/s Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd., 8^th Floor, towel-1 Uniya Business Bay Marathalli Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangaluru (Karnataka) (Through its Director).

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

For the Parties:     Mr. Rajinder Pandey, Advocate for the complainant.

Ops No.1 and 2 already ex-parte.                       

Mr.Vipul Sharma, Adv., for the OP No.3.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a Smart Mobile Set namely ‘Redmi Note 3 Gold 32G’ from OP No. 1. The mobile was covered under warranty given by Mi Protect for a sum of Rs. 599/- (MRP), the total cost of the product including insurance amounting to Rs. 12,598 (exclusive all taxes) as per the invoice dated 21.07.2016. The mobile got wet due to rain in the pocket of the complainant and became inoperative and defective in September 2016. The complainant approached the Ops online for replacement of the mobile set as the same was under warranty. The claim was submitted vide request No. 1578686. However, the OP No. 2 requested the complainant to submit the claim with insurance partner and requested to follow the following steps:-

1. Log on to
2. Click on Membership/Claims, you will see your Service Request number 1578686.
3. Click on the Service Request and verify your details.
4. Upload all necessary documents and images.

The same were undertaken by the complainant and the necessary documents were uploaded. The claim was updated online with regards to the change in technology, after giving description of accidental claim there was no scope of retention of the version or the picture since the same were uploaded and ID/service request number was generated and thereafter, the claim request of the complainant was closed. The complainant fulfilled the requirement as desired by Ops for replacement of the product and provided all the requisites. The complainant received an email dated 29.09.2016 in which it was mentioned that the request No. 1578686 had been closed due to ‘CLAIM NOT REQUIRED’. The insurance claim validity was up to 22.07.2017 vide relationship No. 1150539 but the claim of the complainant was rejected. The complainant issued legal notice dated 12.10.2016 to the Ops but to no avail. This act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2. Notice was issued to the Ops No.1 and 2. None has appeared on behalf of Ops no. 1 and 2, it is deemed to be served and the Ops No.1 and 2 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.02.2017. 
3. Op No.3 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.1 was a vendor of the products sold by the OP no.3. It is submitted that the OP No. 2 was the insurance partner for the products sold by the OP NO. 3. It is submitted that the OP No. 3 was a company incorporated under the Companies Act 2013 and was incorporated in India on October 7, 2014, having its principal place of business at 5^th floor, Block Delta, B Block, Embassy Tech Squre, Inside Cessna Business Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Kadubeesanalli, VarthurHobli, Bangalore-560103. It is submitted that the OP No. 3 was engaged in the marketing, sale and service inter alia of mobile phones in India under the brands “Mi” and “Xiaomi”. It is submitted that the complainant has allegedly purchased a phone sold under the Mi brand namely Radmi Note 3 Gold 32 GB mobile phone for Rs. 12,598/- from the Op No. 1. It is submitted that the complainant approached the OP no. 2 i.e the insurance partner for claiming insurance in connection with damage caused to the product due to exposure to water. It is submitted that the insurance claim of the complainant was rejected by the OP No. 2. It is submitted that the complainant never approached the OP No. 3 in connection with any complaint regarding the product or any queries or complaints against the Op No. 2. It is submitted that the OP No. 3 was a company endeavor has always to fully assist its valuable customers. It is submitted that the complainant never approached the OP NO. 3 in connection with any defects in the product or any complaint against the OP No.2. It is submitted that the OP NO. 3 were unaware and had no knowledge of the entire process of claiming the insurance by the complainant and the subsequent rejection of the claim by the OP No. 2. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.3 has been filed by the complainant.
5. In order to prove his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-12 and closed his evidence. Counsel for the Op No.3 has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R3/A and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for the Op No.3 and have gone through the case file carefully and minutely and have also considered the written arguments submitted by learned counsel for the complainant.
7. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Mobile Set namely ‘Redmi Note 3 Gold 32G’ from Op No. 1 (Annexure C-1) for an amount of Rs. 12,598/-. The above said mobile was covered under warranty Mi protect for a sum of Rs. 599/-. The welcome letter was issued by Op No. 2 (Annexure C-2) which was valid up to 22.07.2017. The above said phone was protected as under:-

Insurance against Accidental & Liquid Damage

You are now protected against accidental & liquid damage of your phone. Damage means physical breakage or destruction of the insured device due to any accidental cause, including damage caused by liquid that prevents the device from functioning properly.

The above said mobile phone was wet in the pocket of the complainant due to rain and became inoperative and defective in September 2016. The complainant approached the Ops online for replacement of the mobile set under the insurance cover, but the Op No. 2 without assigning any reason rejected the claim of the complainant on 29.09.2016 intimating that “the claim of the complainant vide request No. 1578686 has been closed on Thursday September 29, 2016 due to claim not required”.

8. It is clear that since mobile handset was insured by the Ops no. 1 and 2 up to 22.07.2017 and the same was damaged. The claim was rejected without assigning any reason whereas the complainant has completed all the formalities as requested by the Ops. The above said action of the Ops amount to deficiency in service and the complaint of the complainant deserved to be allowed and the complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed accordingly. The Ops are jointly and severally directed as under:-

a)       To replace the mobile phone with new one of same model, configuration and cost to the complainant or to refund the amount of Rs. 12,598/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization.

b)      To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation and harassment.

9. The abovesaid order shall be complied with by the Ops within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced

31.08.2017   JAGMOHAN SINGH    ANITA KAPOOR           DHARAM PAL

                       MEMBER                  MEMBER                PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                                          DHARAM PAL                                                                                         PRESIDENT