Haryana

Ambala

CC/5/2018

Amarjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Yms Mobitech Pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ms Ranjna

01 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMr5BALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  05 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   02.01.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :   01.08.2019.

 

Amarjeet Kaur w/o S. Dalip Singh, resident of House No.61/9, Village Gorsian (309), Jansui, Ambala City.

                                                                                      ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. YMS Mobitech Pvt. Ltd., H-75, Behind Haldi Ram, Sector-63, Delhi.
2. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Ambala Cantt.
3. Walia Communication, Opp. HDFC Bank, Manav Chowk, Ambala City.

 

    ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       None for the complainant.

OPs No.1 & 3 ex parte.           

Shri J.S. Rathore, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.            

 

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay the cost of the mobile in question amounting Rs.69,999/-.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the her.
3. Rs.20,000/- as financial loss suffered by her.
4. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased ‘I phone 7 plus’ mobile from the OP No.3, having IMEI No.35916 00769 20973 with one year warranty, vide Bill No.3154 dated 19.04.2017. The said mobile phone was duly covered by the insurance for damage, pick up and drop service with the OP No.2, vide Policy No.IRN874321 of Master Policy No.95000 04616 11000 00001 dated 21.04.2017. On 01.05.2017, when complainant’s son was sitting on the bank of the pool, suddenly, a boy came and while jumping into the pool, struck with the complainant, due to which, the mobile fell down in the pool and became defective. She immediately jumped into the pool and taken out the mobile, which was found to be defective/not in working order. The complainant lodged the claim on 02.05.2017 and same was registered vide Claim Intimation No.CIN PDMAY02964 dated 02.05.2017 at 01:19 PM. The mobile phone was dispatched through courier to the OP No.1 vide order ID No.YMSD757054335 dated 09.05.2017, but the same has neither been repaired nor replaced with new one. After repeated requests, nothing has been done by the OP No.1, except one email dated 04.07.2017, wherein, it was mentioned that their system is being upgraded and they will update the complainant on or before 12.07.2017, but the OPs failed to supply the mobile or refund its costs. She got served a registered AD legal notice dated 04.09.2017 to the OPs, but all in vain. This way, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notices, none has turned up on behalf of OPs No.1 & 3, accordingly they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 28.02.2018. The OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written version and has raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of true & material facts. On merits, it is stated that there is no relationship of consumer between the parties. The OP No.2 denied the liability under the alleged policy No.IRN874321 of Master Policy No.95000 04616 11000 00001 as mentioned in Para No.1 of the complaint, till the supply of copy of alleged insurance policy and its confirmation from its issuing office. It is incorrect that the claim was lodged on 02.05.2017 and claim intimation No.CINPDMAY02964 dated 02.05.2017 at 01:19 PM. The OP No.2 never received any notice dated 04.09.2017 as alleged in the complaint and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Shri Rajeev Singal, Sr. Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Ambala Cantt. as Annexure R1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file and also the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant. 

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered written arguments stating therein that the complainant had purchased ‘I phone 7 plus’ mobile from the OP No.3, which was duly covered by the insurance. The copy of insurance policy has been placed on record alongwith written arguments. On 01.05.2017, the said mobile phone became defective by falling in the water pool. On 02.05.2017, the complainant lodged the claim, which was registered vide Claim Intimation No.CIN PDMAY02964 dated 02.05.2017 at 01:19 PM. The mobile phone was dispatched through courier to the OP No.1 on 09.05.2017, which had sent an email dated 04.07.2017, mentioning that their system is being upgraded and they will update the complainant on or before 12.07.2017. However, the OPs failed to supply or refund the cost of the mobile, therefore, the OPs committed deficiency in services.

6.                 Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OP No.2 has argued that there is no relationship of consumer between the parties. The OP No.2 denied the liability under the alleged policy, till the supply of copy of alleged insurance policy and its confirmation from its issuing office. The OP No.2 never received any notice dated 04.09.2017 as alleged in the complaint and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint.

7.                From perusal of Bill dated 19.04.2017 (Annexure C-1), it is evident that the complainant had purchased the mobile in question from the OP No.3. The grievance of the complainant is that the said mobile phone became defective and he lodged with the claim with the OPs, but the OPs failed to supply the mobile phone or refund its costs. On the other hand, the OP No.2 has contended that there is no relationship of consumer between the parties and denied the liability under the alleged policy, till the supply of copy of alleged insurance policy and its confirmation from its issuing office. To support his case, the complainant produced claim form of OP No.2 as Annexure C-2, from which, it is clear that the complainant had duly lodged his claim with the OP No.2. The complainant further produced document Delivery/Pickup (Customer Copy) as Annexure C-5 and from perusal of it, it is clear that YMS Mobitech, i.e. OP No.2 had received the damaged mobile of the complainant and issued the said document in this regard. On the other hand, the OP No.2 did not produce any documentary evidence, without which, the contention of the OPs is not believable. From the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clearly established that the OPs No.1 & 2 are deficient in providing the services and have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. Since there is no specific allegations against the OP No.3 and even it has no role to play in the dispute, therefore, complaint against OP No.3 stands rejected.

8.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against the OP No.3 and allow the same against the OPs No.1 & 2. The OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to comply jointly & severally following directions:-

1. To pay the cost of the mobile in question amounting Rs.69,999/-.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   They are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :01.08.2019.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                   Member                       President