Delhi

North East

CC/360/2016

AZAZ AHMAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

WIZARD DIGITEK COMPUTERS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 360/16

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Ajaz Ahmed S/o Mohd. Ali R/o House No. C-171, Street No. 19, North Ghonda, Subhash Mohalla,Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.     2.	Wizard Digitek Computers Pvt. Ltd. C-6/232, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053   Syska-Leehan Retail Pvt. Ltd. 4th Floor Sapphire Plaza Plot No. 80, Street No. 232, New Airport road, Near Symbiosis College Pune, Maharashtra-411014	Opposite Party No.1           Opposite Party No.2

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:               JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                                   DATE OF ORDER:

26.12.16 26.07.22 13.09.22

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

      Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the complaint are that the Complainant purchased a Samsung mobile phone Model J5 of Rs. 11,900/- from Opposite Party No.1 and got it insured form Opposite Party No.2 on 28.02.16 vide card no. 33043378. The Complainant stated that on 11.11.16 the mobile phone in question was damaged and he lodged a complaint in Opposite Party No.2 regarding the same vide complaint no. 1611126145. The official of Opposite Party No.2 stated that the mobile phone in question will be repaired within 15 days and also asked the Complainant to send his document through courier. The Complainant stated that on 17.11.16 he sent his documents through courier and the officials of Opposite Party stated that his one document was missing. The Complainant stated that on 24.11.16 he sent again all his documents through courier and when he asked the Opposite Party No.2 about the receiving of the documents he did not get any reply. The Complainant submitted that on 13.12.16 he again sent his documents through courier to the Opposite Party No.2 but he did not receive any reply from Opposite Party No.2 ,but when the Complainant checked on the company’s website it clearly showed that the Opposite Party No.2  received the documents through courier but Opposite Party No.2  did not give any intimation to him regarding the same. The Complainant stated that he made various phone calls to Opposite Party No.2 but he did not get any satisfactory response from the officials of Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant stated that instead of having the mobile phone in question in warranty the Opposite Party No.2 did not repair the mobile phone. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 11,900/- i.e. the value of the mobile phone along with Rs. 1,200/- i.e. the premium amount of the insurance. He has also prayed for Rs. 22,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2.  Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated  06.03.17.
3. Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. It is submitted by the Opposite Party No.2 that the claim of the Complainant was rejected on the ground that the Complainant had not provided required documents sought by the Opposite Party No.2. Hence, the job card of the Complainant got closed by lapse of time. Further phone suffered damage due to negligence on part of Complainant .
4. It is also submitted by the Opposite Party No.2 that as per the Insurance Booklet of the Opposite Party No. 2 which was handed over to the Complainant itself contains the terms and conditions of the insurance contract governing the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.2 the claim of the Complainant comes under the preview of the term                 “Insufficient/Wrong documentation”, (which was mention in the said Insurance Booklet). Hence, the alleged claim of the Complainant is not admissible as per terms and conditions of the Insurance policy.
5. Further, it is stated by the Opposite party No.2 that Opposite Party No.1 is shopkeeper and the Opposite Party No.2 is only service provider. The insurance is provided by M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd. In such case the claim if any, must be lodged against the said Company. Hence, no cause of action arose against the Opposite party No.2.
6. It is stated also stated by Opposite Party No.2 that Complainant has not given any explanation that how the alleged mobile got damaged. The Complainant has something to conceal. It is denied that any proper documents were sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.2 on 17.11.16. It is denied that the Opposite Party No.2 has received any proper document from the Complainant. It is denied that the Opposite Party No.2 had not solved the alleged problem of the Complainant.
7. It is prayed by the Opposite Party No.2 to dismiss the complaint of the Complainant with costs.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2

8. Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite   Party No.2 and he has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

9. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

10. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of Shri Pramod Lakade, Authorized Signatory of M/s Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd. having office at 4^th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No. 80, S. No. 232, New Airport Road, Near Symbiosis College, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014, Maharashtra, wherein the averments made in the written statement have been supported.

          Arguments and Conclusion

11. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
12.  The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone for Rs. 11,900/- from the Opposite Party No.1 and got it insured with Opposite Party No.2. It is his case that the said mobile phone was damaged and he submitted his claim with Opposite Party No.2 and the same was rejected without any reason. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the Complainant did not submit the requisite document as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is also the case of the Opposite Party No.2 that the mobile phone was damaged due to the negligence of the Complainant. The Complainant has submitted his affidavit stating therein that he has supplied all the necessary documents to the Opposite Party No.2. On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.2 did not specify the document which was not supplied by the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.2 has also not given any proof that the mobile phone was damaged due to the negligence of the Complainant. Therefore the defence of the Opposite Party No.2 cannot be accepted.
13. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 11,900/- i.e. the purchase value of the mobile phone, to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its recovery. An amount of Rs. 8,000/- shall be paid by the Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery. Since the value of the mobile phone has been ordered to be paid by the Opposite Party No.2, therefore the prayer of the Complainant for payment of the insurance premium is declined.
14. Order announced on 13.09.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President