Haryana

Ambala

CC/293/2017

Vineet Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

21 Jun 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 293 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 11.08.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 21.06.2018

 

 

Vineet Sharma, aged  about 25 years s/o Sh. Ajay Sharma, resident of  H.No.2087/2, Swamian Mohalla, Near U.C.O. Bank, Ambala City.

 

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       V.K.Electronics, # 10375/6, Chowk Kotwali Bazar, Ambala City-134002 through its authorized signatory.

2.       Apps Daily Solution Private Ltd. D-3137, Oberoi Garden, Estates, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400072 through its authorized signatory. 

3.       Samsung Authroised Service Centre, 374-A, Adjoining Gurdawara, Prem Nagar, Ambala City through its Authorised Signatory.

4.       Samsung Mobile Shop, Shop No.6/1, DDA Flats, Guru Ravidas Marg, Kalkaji, DDA Flats Kalkaji, Block L-2, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019, through its Authorised Signatory.

5.       Samsung Electronics, 2^nd to 4^th Floor,  Tower-C, Vipin Tachsquare, Galf Course Road, Gurgaon, Sector-43, Gurgaon.

 

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

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

                   Sh. Pushpender  Kumar, Member.            

                  

Present:       Ms. Rekha Verma,  counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for the OP Nos. 3 & 4.

OP Nos. 1 & 2 ex parte v.o.d.04.10.2017.

None for OP No.5.

 

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a Samsung A5-2016 Mobile  handset of worth Rs. 24200/- from OP No.1which includes Rs. 2,200/- on account of insurance charges of this set vide IMEI No.352810080181486, invoice no.6501 dated 17.10.2016 and the OP No.1 got the said mobile handset insured with the OP No.2. In the month of March, 2017, the abovsaid mobile handset slipped from the hands of the complainant and due to this reason LCD of this set was damaged. The complainant approached to the OP No.1 and on the advised of the OP No.1, the complainant approached to OP No.2 and OP No.2 kept the abovesaid handset of the complainant and the OP No.2 has charged Rs. 1500/- from the complainant on account of processing fee and afterwards the OP No.2 returned the same by excusing that since the LCD of abovesaid Mobile handset is not available with the OP No.2 and as such the OP No.2 has returned the same to the complainant. On the advised of OP No.2 advised the complainant approached the OP No.3 & he got the same set deposited with the OP No.3  in the last week of March, 2017. On 06.05.2017, the complainant approached to OP No.3   for taking  his said mobile handset after replacing LCD and removing display problem of screen, but the OP No.3 returned the mobile in question with the complaint that Handset LCD, REPCB, Home key, Battery etc are totally damaged vide returned set to the complainant. After that  on the advised of OP No.1 the complainant further approached to OP No.2 to return the cost of the said mobile being comprehensively insured with the them but the OP No.2 are now avoiding the payment of above said damaged mobile. A  Legal notice dated 15.06.2017 served upon Ops by the complainant. Thus, the Ops have caused mental tension, harassment and financial loss to the complainant. Hence the present complaint.

2.                Registered notice issued to Op Nos.1 & 2 but none have turned

up on their behalf and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated

04.10.2017. Upon notice, OP Nos.3 & 4 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that the case of the complainant is only against the insurance company. The unit of the complainant has got damaged due to mishandling on the part of complainant and it is insurance company who insured the unit of the complainant.  There is no privity contract of contract between the OP company and the insurance company.  So because of an agreement between the complainant and insurance company, only insurance company is responsible for any deficiency in service.

3.               To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A with documents as annexure C-1 to C-8 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP Nos.3 & 4 tendered affidavit as Annexure R-3/A with documents as Annexure R-3/1 and close their  evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and carefully

parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The case of complainant is that he had purchased a Samsung A5-2016 mobile handset of worth Rs.24,200/- from the OP No.1 vide invoice no. 6501 date 17.10.2016 with one year warranty which was insured with OP No.2 vide Annexure C-1 after paying Rs.2,200/-. The complainant alleged that in the month of March, 2017 the abovesaid mobile handset had slipped from the hands of the complainant and due to this reason; LCD of this set was damaged. As per the Annexure C-4 the complainant has filed the claimed in the insurance company and company has charged Rs. 1,500/- on account of Processing fee and afterwards the OP No.2 returned the same by excusing  that since  the LCD  of abovesaid mobile handset is not available with the OP No.2 as per Annexure C-6. Counsel for the complainant argued that after that complainant approached to the OP No.3/service centre for rectification of the mobile in question who gave the estimate of Rs. 24263.02/- for repairing charges of the defective parts but complainant refused to get the same repaired on payment basis. The OP No.2 was not processed the claim.

On the other hand, the OP Nos. 3 & 4 have 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 and the complainant has to bear the estimated cost for repairing but it is strange that as to why he has reached at the conclusion that the warranty of the product in question has expired.

6.                We have gone through the Annexure R-7 which was provided by the OP No.2  i.e copy of booklet of terms and conditions of the insurance policy which is clearly mentioned that “  We understand how precious your phone  is to you. Therefore, we’ve created AppsDaliy Mobile Protection Platinum- the most comprehensive mobile protection product that protects your phone from theft, burglary, liquid & physical damage, alongwith a suite of App features that protect your phone and your precious data. Above all, we promise you a 10-day replacement or repair guarantee.

7.                          The case of the complainant is that the mobile in question has slipped from the hand of the complainant and due to this reason the screen/LCD has been damaged. The above said fact has not been controvered by Ops. The screen/LCD damage means to physical damaged which was occurred during warranty period and OP No.2 has not paid the insured amount even then the OP No.2 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.2, therefore, being an insurer it is the duty of the insurance company/OP No.2 to indemnify the loss if suffered within the warranty period.

8.                          From the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clearly established that the OP No.2 is deficient in providing the services and OP No.2 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.2,200/- for covering the risk qua physical damage etc. Hence, the present complaint is hereby is allowed against OP No.2 with costs but present complaint is hereby dismissed against OP Nos. 1,3 to 5 and Op No.2 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.22,000/-  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 : 21.06.2018

                    

 

 

 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)                (D.N. ARORA)

                   Member                                         President