BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer complaint no. 51 of 2017.
Date of Institution: 6.3.2017.
Date of Decision: 10.8.2017
Himanshu Kumar, Advocate son of Shri Bansi Lal, resident of House No. 1126/15, Gali Solera Wali, Chattergarh Patti, District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Wadhwa Mobiles Care, Authorized Company Dealer/ Retailer, through its Authorized Incharge, near Jaipur Hospital, Circular Road, Sirsa.
2. Syska Gadget Secure (Blanket Cover for devices) (Insurer of the Mobile Set) C/o Leehan Retails Pvt. Limited 4, SSK, Saphire, Piaza Pune, Airport Road, Near Symbiosis College, Pune- 411014.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43, Gurgaon- 122009 through its M.D/ Authorized person.
4. Delivery Courier through its Authorized officer having its office at 1st Floor, Plot 82, Sector 44, Gurgaon, Haryana (122002).
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI RAGHBIR SINGH…………………PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT……………………MEMBER
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.K. Arora, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties No.1, 2 & 4 exparte.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that complainant purchased one Mobile set make Samsung J7 for a sum of Rs.14,900/- from op no.1 vide invoice No.58267 dated 15.6.2016 with guarantee/ warranty of one year. The op no.1 also allured the complainant for the insurance of the mobile set and he purchased insurance plan launched by op no.2 and accordingly he purchased the Gadget covering value between 10001-15000 which was thereafter duly registered by op no.1 of its own vide coupon code No.45250658. The validity of the insurance plan was for the period of one year from the date of registration. That thereafter during the subsisting period of insurance plan the mobile set of the complainant suffered damages as the display of the mobile set has been broken. The complainant accordingly lodged the complaint on 13.12.2016 with the ops and acting thereon, the op no.3 on behalf of ops No.1,2 and 4 collected the damaged mobile set from the complainant vide receipt No.1017910092584 dated 13.12.2016 and the ops fully assured for the replacement of the mobile set within very short period. But the ops failed to redress the grievance even after lapse of sufficient time, hence the complainant paid visit at the shop of op no.1 time and again and also raised complaint at the toll free number of the company number of times. The ops after lingering on the grievance of the complainant for a long time did not file any reply and now when the complainant as per the asking of op no.1 checked the status of his complaint online, then he came to know that the ops have rejected the claim of the complainant vide rejection correspondence dated 28.2.2017. Due to the act and conduct and deficiency in service on the part of the ops, the complainant has suffered mental harassment and agony. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.3 i.e. manufacturer of the mobile in question appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. On merit, it is submitted that case of the complainant is only against the insurance company as the unit of the complainant was damaged due to mishandling and it is the insurance company who insured the unit of the complainant. That the answering op has an online system to enter all service requests/ 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 answering op which means that complainant has never approached the answering op. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
3. Ops No.1,2 and 4 did not appear despite notice and were proceeded against exparte. It is also pertinent to mention here that reply on behalf of op no.4 was received through post on 25.4.2017 in which the simple version of op no.4 is that op no.4 provided only courier services between complainant and op no.1.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A. On the other hand, op no.3 produced affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of warranty card Ex.R2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has testified all the facts so set out by him in his complaint. From the documents available on file i.e. copy of bill, it is evident that complainant purchased the mobile in question from op no.1 on 15.6.2016 for a sum of Rs.14900/- and same was also got insured on the same day with op no.2 by the op no.1. It is also proved on record that above said mobile of the complainant fell down on 12.12.2016 and was damaged. It has also come on record that an amount of Rs.1199/- was charged from the complainant for the insurance of the mobile in question. On intimation to the ops by the complainant, the official of op no.3 collected the mobile from the complainant as is evident from copy of receipt No.1017910092584 placed on record by the complainant but from the status it is evident that although estimated cost of Rs.4720/- was prepared but thereafter the claim has been rejected and the mobile in question has also not been returned to the complainant. Therefore, the op no.2 being the insurer of the mobile in question is liable to refund the price of the mobile in question after necessary depreciation as the mobile in question was purchased on 15.6.2016 and same was damaged on 12.12.2016. The op no.1 being inter-mediatory between complainant and op no.2 for insurance of the mobile in question as complainant got insured his mobile at the instance of op no.1, therefore, op no.1 is also jointly and severally liable for payment of claim to the complainant. However, no liability of remaining ops is made out.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to refund an amount of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant after deduction of amount of Rs.3900/- as depreciation value out of total cost of Rs.14900/- of the mobile in question to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they will be liable to pay Rs.20/- (Rs.twenty) per day as penalty to the complainant subject to maximum of Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand). A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:10.8.2017 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
