Haryana

Ambala

CC/160/2017

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

V.K. Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Manpreet Singh

14 Jun 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 160 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 25.05.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 14.06.2018

 

 

Ashok Kumar son of Shri Makhan Lal, resident of 5764/3, Chhota Bazar, Near Gurudwara Sahib, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       V.K.Electronics through its Prop/Authorised Signatory, 10375/6, Chowk Kotwali Bazar, Ambala City.

2.       Samsung India Elect. Pvt Ltd. through its Authorised Signatory, 7^th & 8^th Floor, IFCI Town, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

3.       Apps Daily C/o V.K.Electronics through its Prop/Authorised Signatory, 10375/6, Chowk Kotwali Bazar, Ambala City.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.             

                    

 

 

Present:       Sh. Manpreet Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the OP No. 1.

Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for OP No.2.

OP No. 3 ex parte v.o.d. 02.11.2017.

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a Samsung Mobile Phone, *S.No.359473/07/833324/8* *359474/07/833324/6* Model No.J710F- ZDUINS, for a sum of Rs.16,000/- on 19.10.2016 vide invoice no.6534 from the OP No.1 and at the time of purchase of the mobile phone, on the advice of OP No.1, the complainant got the said mobile insured with the OP No.3 for which the OP No.1 charged Rs.1749/- from the complainant. About 2 months of its purchase,  the screen of the mobile phone had suddenly broken from one side, the complainant immediately reported the complaint to the OP No.1, on the advice of the OP No.1 the complainant had tried to submit the complaint on the web site www.claims.appsdaily.in  but server of the site remains down. After that, the complainant also reported his complaint to the OP No.2 but the Ops always putting off the complainant by one way of the other. Neither the OP No.1 nor the OP No.2 or 3 are hearing the request of the complainant, due to which the complainant is facing great hardship. He further stated that when the screen of the mobile phone was damaged, the Ops refused to change the mobile phone or replace the screen of the phone, due to which the complainant has suffered great mental pain, harassment agony. Hence, the present complaint. 

2.                          Registered notice issued to Op No.3 but none has turned up on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.11.2017. Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that complainant has purchased a phone on 19.10.2016 but it is incorrect that the OP No.1 had advised the complainant to get the mobile phone insured to the OP No.3. The complainant has miserably failed to complaint as to how the screen of the mobile phone has suddenly broken. This might be the reason the OP No.3 might have decline the claim of the complainant.

Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that the case of the complainant is only against the insurance company as the unit of the complainant was damaged due to mishandling on the part of complainant as the complainant himself stated in his complaint that mobile of complainant was damaged due to mishandling  on part of complainant and it is the insurance company who insured  the unit of the complainant. The OP No.2 has an online system to enter all claims/complaints vide IMEI/Sr. No. in each and every case but  in the present complaint as per details mentioned in the complaint, no details found in the online system of the company which means that complainant has never approached  to the Ops. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op nos.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3.                         To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A with documents as annexure C-1 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A  & OP No.2 tendered affidavit as Annexure R/B with documents as Annexure R-1 and closed their evidence.

4.                          We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                          The case of complainant is that he had purchased a Samsung Mobile Phone, Model No.J710FZDUINS, for s sum of Rs. 16,000/- on 19.10.2016 vide invoice no.6534 from OP No.1 with the one year warranty which was insured with OP No.3 vide Annexure C-1. The complainant has alleged that the mobile in question has been become physically damage/the screen of the mobile phone had suddenly broken from one side within warranty period. The complainant approached to the OP No.1/dealer for rectification of the mobile in question and OP No.1 has suggested to approach to the OP No.3 being insurer.  The OP No.2 has also come with the plea that the warranty become void as the LCD/Screen of mobile in question was damaged which occurred due to fault of the customer. No job sheet/card has been placed on record. The version of complainant duly supported by his affidavit reveals that the defects of the mobile set could not be rectified by Ops within its warranty period and even it was returned back without getting the necessary work done. Undisputedly, the screen damaged/physical damage during warranty period and OP No.3 has not  paid the insured amount  even then the OP No.3 has also proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant. Since, the mobile in question is insured with the OP No.3, therefore, being an insurer it is the duty of the insurance company/OP No.3 to indemnify the loss if suffered within the warranty period.

6.                          From the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clearly established that the OP No.3 is deficient in providing the services and OP No.3 has failed to redress the grievance of the complainant as per his satisfaction.      Since, the complainant has obtained insurance policy for mobile in question from OP No.3 by paying a sum of Rs.1,749/- for covering the risk qua physical damage etc. Hence, the present complaint is hereby is allowed against OP No.3 with costs but  present complaint is hereby dismissed against OP Nos. 1 & 2 and Op No.3 is directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

 (i)     To pay the invoice amount Rs. 16,000/-  as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization subject to return the old mobile  alongwith accessories to the OP No.3 by the complainant.

 (ii)    Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony  alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :    14.06.2018

                            

 

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)               (D.N. ARORA)

                   Member                                     President