Delhi

North East

CC/455/2015

Anuj Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijay Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

29 Mar 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. 455/15

 

In the matter of:

	Shri Anuj Kumar S/o Shri Ravinder Kumar R/o H.No. 3762, Kanahia Nagar Trinagar, Delhi 110035	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	M/s. Vijay Electronics 1/9294 West Rohtas Nagar Shahdara, Delhi 110032.   M/s. I-Care (Manpreet Tele Services) A-159, Ground Floor, Main Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi 110092	Opposite Parties

 

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

18.11.2015 29.03.2019 29.03.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts relevant for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a mobile handset model Sony Xperia Model NO. T-2 Ultra bearing IMEI No. 351867066762169 from OP1 retail outlet / seller on 22.06.2014 for a sum of Rs. 23,200/- inclusive of VAT vide invoice book no. 67/serial no. 6679. At the time of purchase of the said mobile, the complainant was induced by OP1 to get the mobile handset insured against accidental / physical and liquid damage from OP2 and the complainant acting upon the representation of OP1 and assurance of security of his mobile handset and replacement thereof in case of any untoward incident in future, got the same insured with OP2 on payment of Rs. 2,320/- (Rupees Two Thousand Three Hundred Twenty only) as premium for the Theft and Accidental Damage Cover of two years and warranty service of one year provided by OP2 vide Receipt Sl. No. IC/14/1909. However, when on 20.03.2015, the said mobile phone got liquid damaged and the complainant went to OP1, the complainant was asked by OP1 to go to OP2 where he got the insurance from for compensation. The complainant on reaching at the address of the OP2, didn’t find either any office of OP2 nor its service centre at the given address. Complainant returned to OP1 but OP1 didn’t redress the grievance of complainant despite having received the insurance amount of Rs. 2,320/- from the complainant and on the contrary asked the complainant to search for OP1 on his own. The complainant sent a legal notice to OP1 but OP didn’t respond to and therefore the complainant was compelled as last resort to file the present complaint before this Forum praying for issuance of directions against the OPs to either replace the said defective mobile phone with a new one or in the alternate refund the cost thereof i.e. Rs. 23,200/- alongwith cost of insurance i.e. Rs. 2,320/-, in addition to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation charges.

Complainant has attached copy of retail invoice issued by OP1 towards purchase of mobile, copy of insurance certificate issued by OP2 under stamp and seal of OP1 granting coverage against liquid and physical damage for two years and one year service warranty with respect to the mobile in question, copy of legal notice to the OP1 dated 26.08.2015 with postal receipts and track report of delivery.

2. Notices were issued to OPs on 04.12.2015 however OPs failed to appear despite service effected to OP1 on 17.12.2015 and to OP2 as deemed service on ‘refusal’ under Section 28 (3A) of CPA on 16.12.2015 and both OPs were therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.02.2016.
3. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant on 23.04.2016 in reiteration of his grievance and exhibited copy of invoice book no. 67 with Sl. No. 6679 as Ex-CW1/1, payment made for insurance vide receipt Sl. No. IC/14/1909 as Ex-CW1/2 and copy of Legal Notice dated 26.08.2015 alongwith its postal Receipt & POD as Ex CW1/3 (Colly).
4. Written arguments were filed by the complainant in which the complainant reinforced his grievance against the OPs and for non redressal of his problem of liquid damaged handset by both the OPs despite being seller and insurer respectively thereof and duty bound to do so and prayed for relief claimed. Complainant further argued that he was covered as per the warranty terms and conditions since he had used the mobile handset as per its usage specifications and the damage thereto was accidental and not intentional thereby entitling him for compensation from OPs for which he attempted reaching customer care of OP2 several times but to no avail. The complainant alleged connivance between the OPs to cheat and play fraud upon customers with fake insurance policy wherein OP1 would get its share of amount from each policy and when the time came for claiming benefit arising out of insurance policy, OP1 shifted the burden to OP2 in collusion and conspiracy with each other.  
5. We have heard the arguments addressed by complainant and have perused the documents placed on record on which perusal a key observation has come to light that the insurance cover note issued by OP2 bears the seal of OP1 which clearly establishes that OP1 and OP2 had mutually beneficial business relationship/ tie up and at behest of OP1, the complainant was coerced into taken insurance cover from OP2. The said exercise was for business promotion of each other in the market for commercial gains. Therefore the role of OP1 and OP2 in the present complaint and inter se is rather collusive in as much as furthering each other’s commercial interests.         

The subject mobile phone was duly insured with OP2 which is proven beyond doubt from material evidence placed on record by the complainant, corroborated / endorsed by OP1 and unrebutted by OPs due to their willful non appearance.

6. In the present case since the subject mobile was duly insured with OP2 at the behest of OP1 as can be seen in the insurance certificate, both OP1 and OP2 were liable to pay the insurance claim amount to the complainant since OP1 had received consideration amount for the said handset and OP1 had received premium amount for insuring the said handset from the complainant but both OPs failed to discharge their contractual liability towards the complainant which in our view is act of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  
7.  We therefore direct OP1 and OP2 as seller and insurer respectively jointly and severally to pay the insurance claim amount of    Rs. 23,200/- and insurance amount of Rs. 2,320/- to the complainant. We further direct OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. Let the order be complied by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.                                  
8.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9.  File be consigned to record room.
10.  Announced on 29.03.2019 

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member