Delhi

North East

CC/266/2016

PAWAN SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

VASNSHIKA ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

04 Oct 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 266/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Pawan Sharma S/o Shri Jagdeesh Prasad Sharma R/o 5B/21-A, Gurudwara Mohalla Gali No. 4, Maujpur, Shahdara Delhi- 110053.	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Vanshika Electronic WA-118, Shakarpur Mother Dairy Road Delhi-110092.   Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt Ltd G.E. Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada Pune-411006.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION :

05.10.2016 04.10.2019 04.10.2019

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Grievance of the complainant in the present complaint is that for the mobile phone Lenovo Vibe K4 Note (Black 16GB) bearing IMEI No. 367802026863507 purchased online through Amazon on 23.02.2016 for Rs. 11,999/-, the complainant faced problems with the said mobile phone after 3-4 months for which when he went to OP1 for repairs, he was advised by OP1 to get the same insured against theft, liquid damage and accidental breakage. The complainant therefore got insurance of the said mobile phone done on 04.05.2016 on payment of Rs. 1349/- vide policy no. AGAB2X000000122 with OP2 and was assured that the policy would be sent to him through speed post. The same was however never sent. In the interim the complainant’s mobile got totally damages and he has been running pillar to post from service centre to insurance office to get the mobile repaired but has not been given any satisfactory response from either of the agencies and was therefore constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum praying for issuance of directions against the OPs to refund the cost of mobile alongwith compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

Complainant has attached copy of retail invoice of purchase of mobile, copy of tax invoice issued by OP1 for Rs. 1349/- mentioning the policy number with IMEI No. 367802026863499.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 17.10.2016. None appeared on behalf of OP2 despite service effected on 27.10.2016 and was therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.12.2016. OP1 was served on its changed name and address ‘Strength Service’ as it had ‘Left’ the previous premises and was served on 09.12.2016 but failed to appear and was therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.02.2017.
3. Complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit in which it placed on record copy of advance / booking receipt no. 415 dated 25.01.2016 issued by OP1 for Rs. 170/- for IMEI No. 867371021012171, copy of Lenovo Service Record dated 25.11.2016 issued by Lenovo for product model A6000 IN BLACK with IMEI No. 867371021012171 with service offering: Out of Warranty with Customer complaint: handset dead and damaged and copy of retail invoice no. SS/390/16-17 dated 29.11.2016 issued by OP1 for Rs. 170/-.
4. Written arguments were filed by the complainant praying for relief claimed.

The complainant was directed to place on record documentary proof in support of role of OP2 as the alleged insurance company with which mobile protection plan was taken. However, complainant simply filed certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act without placing the transaction slip on record.

5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and have carefully screened the documents placed on record.

The tax invoice dated 04.05.2016 under the stamp of OP1 merely mentions a policy number without any insurance company and the IMEI Number mentioned on the said invoice with respect to the mobile in question is different from the IMEI number mentioned in the purchase invoice of the mobile issued by Amazon. Further, no documentary evidence has been placed on record in support of role of OP2 as the insurer of the mobile phone in question. The documents filed by the complainant alongwith evidence are the retail invoice dated 25.01.2016 and 29.11.2016 issued by OP1, the former mentions a third different IMEI Number of which Lenovo issued a service record dated 25.11.2016 of a different mobile phone of a different model other than purchased and allegedly insured, thereby complainant has filed documents pertaining to three different IMEI numbers in the same complaint and two different mobile model numbers.

6. Having critically analyzed the complaint in light of discrepancy in documents, we are of the considered opinion that it is a frivolous and vexatious complaint with no cause of action and utterly devoid of merits and also reeks of falsehood in as much as complainant own documents ironically belies his own case. We therefore dismiss the same under Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act with a stern warning to the complainant to desist from misusing the machinery of law lest be dealt with heavy hand and imposed a cost of Rs. 1000/- on the complainant to be deposited with consumer legal aid for filing a false case and hoodwinking this Forum.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8.  File be consigned to record room.
9.  Announced on 04.10.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member