Date of Filing:27/06/2015

      Date of Order:11/03/2016

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -  27.

Dated: 11^TH DAY OF MARCH 2016

PRESENT

SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, B.SC., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PRESIDENT

SRI.H.JANARDHAN,B.A.L, LL.B., MEMBER

SMT.BHARATI.B.VIBHUTE, B.E(I.P.) LL.B., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1214/2015

B.Lokesh,

No.27/7, 20^th Cross,

7^th Main, Bhuvaneshwara Nagar,

Magadi Road,

Bangalore-560 023.                         Complainant

V/s

1. Universal Telecom

India Pvt. Ltd., (Head Office)

#278, Sathiya Building,

Opp. Saravana Bhavan

& Near Sathyam Cinema Hall,

Peters Road, Gopalapuram,

Chennai-600 086.

2. BJRS Tech Serve Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Flat No.3,

New No.9C, Old No.9/7,

Perumal Koil,

St.Nerkundram,

Chennai-600 010.

3. Univercell Telecom

India Pvt. Ltd.,

#45, Next to Indraprastha Hotel,

17^th Cross, Mg Layout,

Vijayanagar,

Bangalore-560 040.                    Opposite Parties    

ORDER

BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred in short as Ops) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prays for direction to the Ops to pay cost of mobile for a sum of Rs.23,500/- and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and further pay Rs.5,000/- as legal fees.

2.    The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant had purchased a mobile i.e. Samsung Grand2 from Univercel store in Vijayanagar Bangalore on 23.2.2014 for a sum of Rs.23,500/- (IMEI No.35211601617202)(Invoice NO.VNC/7115) along with mobile with insurance and the insurance was renewed on 24.1.2015 and collected an amount of Rs.1,200/-  with Total ‘Blue care.

3.     The complainant submits that on 22.3.2015 the complainant filed complaint to the police station and received a form NO.76A  and the complainant claimed the insurance company dated 23.3.2015. Further the insurance company told that the clamed amount will come within 30 working days. Further the complainant called again to the insurance company and the same they told that cannot proceed the claim. Further the complaiantn went Univercel mobile store in Vijayanagar, Bangalore more than 20 to 30 times.  The complainant got issued notice on 5.6.2015  to the O.P.s  and same is not responded. Hence this complaint.

4.      Upon issuance of notice, O.P No.1 to 3 serving of notice did not appear in order to contest the case and thereon O.P.No.1 to 3 are proceeded to place exparte.

5.     To substantiate the above case, the complainant has filed the affidavit evidence along with documents.  We have heard the arguments.

6.     On the basis of pleadings of the complainant, the following points will arise for our considerations are:-

                                (A)    Whether the complainant has proves

                       deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

(B)    Whether the complainant is entitled to the

         relief prayed for in the complaint?

(C)    What order?

7.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT (A) & (B):      In the affirmative.

POINT (C):       As per the final order

for the following:

REASONS

POINT (A) & (B):-

8.     It is the specific case of the complainant is that, he has purchased the mobile hand set in question from the O.P.No.3 by paying an amount of Rs.23,500/- on perusal of the bill it discloses that on 3.2.2014 the complainant duly purchased the mobile hand set in question by paying an amount of Rs.23,500/-. Further on perusal of the tax invoice bearing UKA No.3005762 dated 24.1.2015 it clearly discloses that the complainant insured his mobile hand set through O.Ps with the Oriental Insurance Company. Further on perusal of the police copy of the FIR it is evidence that the complainant lost his mobile it is worth to note that once the mobile hand set in question was insured through the O.Ps and the money is collected from the O.Ps. It is the bounden duty of the O.Ps received the amount of Rs.1,200/- as evident from the records towards the insurance coverage of the mobile.  It is their obligatory duty is to fulfill the terms of the contract of insurance.  Further the O.Ps though notice served from the Forum but the O.Ps remained absent and did nto answered the claim put forth by the complainant.  Hence consequently proceeded to place exparte. On perusal of the over all evidence placed on record it is clearly evidence that the complainant purchased the mobile hand set in question from the O.P.No.3 and the said mobile hand set was duly insured also it is evidence from the perusal of the FIR the mobile hand set was lost.  Non-honouring of the claim by the O.Ps not only deficiency in service on their part but it also nothing but unfair trade practice.  Hence, we deem it just and proper all the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant. further O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Accordingly,  we answered Point (A) and (B) in the affirmative.

POINT (C):

9.     Based on the findings given above and in the result I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed-in-part with cost.
2. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant.
3. O.Ps. are also pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
4. The O.Ps. are jointly and severally are directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and in the event of failure to comply the orders, the O.Ps are liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the realization of the amount and submit the compliance report to this forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 11^th Day of March 2016)

MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT

*Rak