MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

28.05.2024

1. A complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts are that complainant purchased Nokia XDS Mobile phone from OP1 on 07.05.2014 by paying a sum of Rs. 7,200/-. At the time of purchasing the handset the official of OP1 suggested the complainant to purchase the insurance policy for the handset in question. Believing on the assurance of OP1 official complainant insured the handset for one year w.e.f. 07.05.2014 to 06.05.2015 from OP2 by paying a sum of Rs. 400/- on 07.05.2014.
2. It is alleged by the complainant that after three months of the purchase the handset started creating the trouble, the camera glass and mobile set suffered from hanging issue and as such complainant approached OP2 to verify the status of its warranty and on the complaint of complainant one engineer namely Sh. Rahul Kapoor visited the residence of the complainant and pick up the handset for repairing vide receipt no. 5463 dated 18.08.2014. It is further alleged by the complainant that after picking the handset the officials of the OP failed to provide any satisfactory information and despite his repeated follow up the OP2 failed to handover the handset in question. Being aggrieved by the services of OP2 the complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.
3. Notice of the complaint was sent to both the OPs. Despite service neither OP1 appeared nor filed its written statement. OP2 filed its written statement in the name of RMP Electronics Pvt. Ltd. wherein it denied any deficiency in service on its part. It is further stated by OP2 that the handset in question is under the protection plan which was insured with New India Assurance Co. ltd. and OP2 only provided the pick and drop services of the handset as well as documents as per the agreement agreed between complainant and OP2, and the requisite documents provided by complainant is provided to New India Assurance Co. ltd for processing the claim. After continuous follow up  with New India Assurance Co. it reveals that complainant failed to submit the requisite documents required for processing the claim as such the Ins. Co. failed to process the claim of the complainant and OP2 pick up the handset from the office of Ins. Co. and returned back to the customer via courier Ecom Xpress against AWB No. 103967897 dated 01.04.2015. It is stated on behalf of OP2 that as per the agreement the OP had duly pick up the handset in question and handed over the same to the New India Assurance Co. for processing the claim as such no cause of action, if any, accrued in favor of the complainant and against OP, it is therefore, prayed that present complaint be dismissed with cost being frivolous one.
4. Rejoinder to the WS of OP2 filed wherein the complainant admit that he received back the handset in question from OP2 however, the handset is completely dead.
5. Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint. Complainant has placed on record the copy of invoice, copy of the pamphlet issued by OP2 wherein the details of the handset is filled by OP2 and the protection plan was given to the complainant against the handset. Copy of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, copy of fault completion report in support of his contention.
6. Sh. Anil Kumar AR for OP2 filed evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP2.
7. Both the parties filed their respective written arguments. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. D.K. Sinha and Sh. Amit Nahada on behalf of OP1. Despite opportunity OP2 failed to address the arguments.
8. Some facts are not disputed by the parties such as the handset in question, protection plan issued by OP2. Admittedly, as per the invoice dated 07.05.2014 complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 400/- to OP2 against the protection plan. As per the protection plan OP2 assured the complainant pick and drop service with free handset insurance. The OP2 has averred in its written statement that as per the agreement he pick up the handset from the complainant and submit it with the New India Assurance Co. ltd. for processing the claim but the insurance co. failed to process the claim due to lack of documentation as well as improper documentation by complainant. Besides bare version nothing has been placed on record by OP2 in respect to the filing of the claim as well as its rejection by New India Assurance Co. ltd. The complainant has stated in his rejoinder at para 5 that initially there was hanging problem in the handset but after receiving back by OP2 the handset is completely dead, to support this contention complainant failed to place on record any documentary evidence and as such no relief can be granted on this aspect.  
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that despite receiving Rs. 400/- against the protection plan OP2 although pick up the phone but failed to facilitate  the claim with New India Assurance Co. as agreed between the parties. We therefore hold OP2 guilty of deficiency in service and direct it to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5000/- on account of pain and mental agony suffered by him which will also include the cost of litigation.
10. OP 2 is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which OP2 is liable to pay to the complainant interest @9% per annum from the date of non-compliance till realization.
11. With the above observation the present complaint stands disposed off. File be consigned to record room.
12. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on   28.05.2024.

Sanjay Kumar            Nipur Chandna                      Rajesh

               President                            Member                         Member