Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/27/2017

Ankur Kaushal - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS electronics Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Nirbhay Garg

25 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                 Consumer Complaint No.27 of 2017

                                                                     Date of institution:  20.04.2017                                                          

                                                                  Date of decision   :  25.04.2018

Ankur Kaushal aged about 34 years, Sunshine Hotel Motia Khan, Near Bhola Nath Chikersai, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. TVS Electronics Ltd. C/o DHL, 4^th Floor, Plot No.193-197 & 254-258, 137 & 248-249, Jigani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bangalore-562106, through its Chairman/Director/Partner/Responsible Person.
2. ONE ASSIST CONSUMER SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 707-708-709, ACME PLAZA ANDHERI- KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI- 400 059.

                                                                             …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Quorum

                        Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          

                       Sh. Inder Jit, Member

   

Present :    Sh.B.B.Sharma, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.            

                  Sh.Anwar Hussain, Adv.Cl. for OP No.1.        

                   Opposite party No. 2 ex-parte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                   Complainant Ankur Kaushal aged about 34 years, Sunshine Hotel Motia Khan, Near Bhola Nath Chikersai, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                The complainant purchased a mobile phone i.e. Redmi Note 3 Silver 32 G along with insurance cover, vide invoice No.1471410651684567008 dated 17.08.2016 bearing order No.5160816373010525 for a total amount of Rs.12,598/- including tax and insurance. One year warranty was given by the OPs. After about one month i.e. in the month of September 2016, the said mobile stopped working. The complainant handed over the said mobile to the authorized agent of the OPs for repair/replacement. But the OPs failed to repair/replace the said mobile. The OPs refunded Rs.8,850/- only to the complainant through NEFT on 15.12.2016 instead of Rs.12,598/- as mentioned in the invoice.  The complainant many times requested the OPs to pay the amount but they did not listen to the genuine requests of the complainant and flatly refused to do so. The complainant also served a legal notice on OPs but all the vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant.

3.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs. But OP No. 2 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OP No. 2 was proceeded against exparte.

4.                The complaint is contested by OP No.1. In reply to the complaint OP No.1 stated that OP No.1 is only a vendor of the alleged product and the refund to the complainant has been made by the insurance partner i.e. OP No.2 and hence any dispute in connection with the amount of refund can only be made against the insurance provider. After denying the other averments made in the complaint OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint qua it.  

5.                In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence copy of tax invoice Ex. C-1, copy of account statement Ex. C-2, copy of legal notice Ex.C-3, postal receipt Ex. C-4, his affidavit Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence statement of account Ex. OP1/1 and closed the evidence.

6.                Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that the OPs have committed deficiency in service by intentionally neglecting the requests made by the complainant and thereafter refusing to explain, as to why full amount was not refunded. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that due to the act and conduct of the OPs, complainant had to go through lots of mental as well as physical harassment. He further argued that complainant deserves to be compensated for the act and conduct of the OPs.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 stated that OP No.1 is not responsible for refund of insurance premium paid by the complainant to OP No.2. He pleaded that he is simply a vendor and has nothing to do with the act and conduct of OP No.2. He argued that the present complaint be dismissed qua OP no.1.  

8.                After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find that OP No.1 is only a vendor and OP No.2 has made the part payment of Rs.8850/- to the complainant. Despite service, OP No.2 did not prefer to rebut the allegations of the complainant in his complaint. Non rebuttal and choosing not to contest the case proves admission of the facts.

9.                Accordingly in view of aforesaid discussion, we find OP No.2 has acted negligently by not properly redressing the grievance of complainant. The OP No.2 was bound to explain to the complainant, as to why full amount was not refunded despite several requests made by the complainant but it did not do so, as proved from the material placed on record by the complainant. Hence we find that OP No.2 has committed deficiency in service. Thus, we direct OP No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- in lump sum to the complainant for causing mental agony as well as litigation cost only. No demand has been raised in the prayer clause by the complainant for refund of balance amount. OP No.2 is directed to comply with the order of this Forum within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, in case OP No.2 fails to comply with this order the OP shall also be held liable to pay 9 % interest on the costs awarded till its realization.  The present complaint stands dismissed qua OP No.1 and stands accepted against OP No.2.

10.              The arguments on the complaint were heard on 19.04.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.                                                                           

Pronounced                                                                                      

    Dated:25.04.2018                                                                             (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                                               

                                                                                                                President

 

               (Inder Jit)          

               Member