BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 125 of 2017
Date of Institution : 7.6.2017
Date of Decision : 4.4.2018.
Rohit Kumar son of Shri Bhagwati Parshad, resident of House No.737, Sector-20, HUDA, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Unique Sales Corporation, Authorized Company Dealer/ Retailer, through its Authorized Incharge, Opp. Head Post Office Sirsa- 125055.
2. Apps Daily Solutions Pvt Limited Shop No.315, C-Wing, Shanti Shopping Centre, Mira Road (East) Near Railway Station, Mumbai, Maharashtra through its Authorized person.
3. Apple India Private Limited, 9th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Malya Road, Bangalore- 560001 (Karnataka) India through its Authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER
Present: Sh. Purshotam Phutela, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. V.S. Sihag, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
Opposite party no.2 given up.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one I phone make Apple bearing IMEI No.352085073653755 Sr. No. DX 3R5R2ZFRC4 against cash amount of Rs.20500/- vide invoice No.25338 dated 5.3.2016 with one year guarantee/ warrantee from opposite party no.1. The op no.1 of his own allured the complainant for the insurance of the mobile set and accordingly he purchased the insurance plan launched by op no.2 i.e. Gadget covering value upto Rs.30,000/- which was thereafter duly registered by op no.1 of its own vide coupon code of op no.2. The validity of the insurance plan was for the period of one year from the date of registration. It is further averred that op no.1 also assured for the liability of the manufacturing company/ op no.3 in case of any kind of deficiency on the part of op no.2 on happening of any kind of damage to the mobile set. That thereafter during the subsisting period of insurance plan, the mobile set of complainant suffered damages as the display of the mobile set has broken. The complainant accordingly lodged the complaint in the month of February, 2017 with the ops and acting on the complaint, the op no.2 collected the damaged mobile set from complainant vide CIN No.140217197861630 and endorsement to this effect has been issued by the ops. It is further averred that after the receipt of the damaged mobile set, the ops also assured the complainant that the damages is within insurance period and as such claim of complainant would be disbursed and grievance would definitely be redressed by them very soon and as such issued the endorsement in this regard on 2.3.2017. It is further averred that thereafter as the ops failed to redress the grievance of complainant even after lapse of sufficient time, hence the complainant paid visit at the shop of op no.1 time and again and also raised complaint with the ops number of times. That now the ops after lingering on the grievance of complainant for a long time failed to redress the grievance of complainant and has repudiated the claim of complainant without any reasonable cause and issued letter dated 10.3.2017 vide which the ops have simply reported that claim of complainant is not tenable under the terms and conditions of Protection Policy but completely failed to explain as to how and why the claim of complainant is not covered under the said policy. That due to the act and conduct of the ops, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, the complainant has undergone harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement submitting therein that the answering op is the authorized dealer of the mobiles manufactured company and being the authorized dealer, it is the duty of the answering op to make the customer aware about the coverage of risks etc. by way of purchase of the insurance policy. The answering op never allured the complainant rather he himself being interested purchased the insurance policy. It is further submitted that op no.1 being only the authorized dealer of the mobile manufactured by op no.3 has got no liability to redress the alleged grievances of the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. Opposite party no.3 in its separate reply has asserted that conversation and contracts entered between the complainant and other ops are not known to the op no.3. Moreover, op no.3 does not provide any sort of insurance against any products. They have not authorized anybody to promote and/ or sell insurance against their products. It is further submitted that op no.3 provides one year free warranty to all their consumers against the products manufactured by them, provided they follow the terms and conditions mention therein. The complainant has damaged the screen himself, hence it is out of warranty offered by op no.3. The complainant should address all his issues with the other ops as he admits that they insured the said iphone. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
4. Opposite party no.2 was given up by learned counsel for complainant being unnecessary.
5. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copies of endorsements Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, copy of proforma invoice Ex.C6, copy of document of letter dated 10.3.2017 Ex.C7, copy of endorsement Ex.C8 and copy of document of apps daily regarding mobile protection Ex.C9. On the other hand, op no.3 produced affidavit of Sh. Priyesh Poovanna, Country Legal Counsel Ex.R1, copy of resolution Ex.R2 and copy of warranty card Ex.R3.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant had originally filed this complaint against three opposite parties namely Unique Sales Corporation i.e. op no.1, Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Limited op no.2 and Apple India Private Limited op no.3. The complainant has filed this complaint with the allegations that complainant had purchased one iphone make Apple bearing IMEI No.352085073653755 Sr. No. DX 3R5R2ZFRC4 against cash amount of Rs.20500/- vide invoice No.25338 dated 5.3.2016 with one year guarantee/ warrantee from opposite party no.1. The said mobile is manufactured by op no.3 and same was got insured from opposite party no.2 but however, the complainant through his counsel vide his statement dated 18.1.2018 given up opposite party no.2 being unnecessary party. Further, it is averred in the complaint that during the subsistence of the period of insurance plan, mobile set of complainant suffered damages as the display of the mobile set broken and complainant accordingly lodged complaint in the month of February, 2017 with the opposite parties and acting on the complaint of complainant, the op no.2 collected the damaged set from the complainant vide CIN No.140217197861630 and endorsement to this effect has been issued by the ops. After receipt of the damaged mobile set, the ops also assured the complainant that the damages is within insurance period and as such claim of complainant would be disbursed and grievance would definitely be redressed by them very soon and as such issued the endorsement in this regard on 2.3.2017.
8. The perusal of the complaint as well as affidavit of the complainant categorically reveals that complainant has lodged this complaint against the insurance company qua the damage of the mobile on the ground that mobile of complainant has been damaged and same is covered under insurance policy duly issued by op no.2. There are no allegations in the complaint as well as in the deposition of complainant that there is any fault on the part of op no.1 dealer as well as op no.3 manufacturer. The perusal of the evidence of complainant also reveals that he has deposed specifically against op no.2 insurance company to whom the complainant has already given up. So, it appears from the evidence of complainant that complainant has not sought any relief against ops no.1 and 3 and as such complaint of complainant appears to be without any merit.
9. In view of the above, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed being without any merit but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:4.4.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
