Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/493/2017

Miss Vandana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ajay Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Arjun Kumar Shukla Adv.

16 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	493 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	23.06.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	16.11.2017

 

 

 

 

Vandana D/o Sh.Nandu Kishor, Resident of H.No.2517, Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran, U.T., Chandigarh. 

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Ajay Enterprises, through its Proprietor, Booth No.11, Sector 11, Panchkula, Haryana.

2]  Bajaj Finserv Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, SCO 26, First & Second Floor, above Axis Bank, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

3]  CPP Assistance Service Pvt. Ltd., 114-117, Bestech Chambers, B Block, Sushant Lok   Phase-1, Gurgaon 122002, Haryana

4]  OPPO F1S Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Vatika Business Park, 2^nd Floor, Sohana Road, Gurgaon 122001, Block-1, Gurgaon Sector 49.

….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER

                    SH. RAVINDER SINGH    MEMBER

 

 

Argued by :-

Sh.Arjun Kumar Shukla, Adv. for the complainant.

None for Opposite Party NO.1.

Sh.Varun Sharma, Adv. for Opposite Party No.2

OPs No.3 & 4 exparte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

         In brief, the case of the complainant is that she purchased a mobile handset Model OPPO F1S from OP No.1 on 20.9.2016 for an amount of Rs.17,990/- vide bill Ann.C-1 after getting it financed from OP No.2.  The complainant also got the said mobile handset insured from OP No.3, through Opposite Party No.2, on payment of Rs.1799/- (Ann.C-2). It is averred that the complainant paid all the installments of loan to Bajaj Finance Pvt. Ltd.(OP No.2) but it still did not issue clearance certificate (Annexure C-3).  It is also averred that in second week of Jan., 2017, the complainant noticed that there is a damage on display of screen of mobile and the phone is not working properly. Thereafter, the complainant took the mobile to Opposite Party No.2, but OP No.2 sent a mail to complainant through OP No.3 to give repair bill with relevant mobile documents, which she duly submitted, whereupon OP No.3 assured to the complainant that OP No.2 will clear the repair bill of Rs.4170.30/- within 28 working days, but they failed to make any such payment (Ann.C-4 & C-5).  It is also submitted that the Opposite Party NO.2 initially entered wrong name of the complainant as Vandana Kishor, whereas the complainant was having correct name Vandana in Invoice Bill and other documents, and also submitted PAN & Aadhaar Card to OP No.2 for correcting the name in their documents.  It is submitted that the complainant visited Opposite Party NO.2 a number of times and also contacted Opposite Party No.3 for settlement of his claim, but they failed to make payment of repair bill.  It is also submitted that the complainant also requested the OPs to either make the payment of repair bill or replace the mobile handset, but they did nothing. Hence, this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

 

2]       The Opposite Party NO.1 has filed reply stating that his role is very limited as he is a dealer of Opposite Party No.4 and his duty is to sell the mobile handset of Opposite Party NO.4 only.  It is denied that the Opposite Party NO.1 ever asked the complainant to get the mobile handset insured from Opposite Party No.2.  It is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from it after getting it financed from Opposite Party No.2. It is stated that warranty of the phone is provided by Opposite Party NO.4.  Other allegations have been denied for want of knowledge and Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

         The Opposite Party NO.2 has also filed reply and while admitting the factum of grant of loan to the complainant for the purchase of mobile in question, stated that the complainant never approached the answering Opposite Party for ‘No Objection Certificate’ after repayment of her loan amount for which it cannot be held liable.  It is stated that the complainant with her free consent had got her phone insured with Opposite Party NO.3, a separate entity from Opposite Party NO.2, after making payment of Rs.1799/-.  It is also stated that no assurance was ever given by OP No.3 that bill will be cleared by OP No.2, as alleged.  It is stated that complainant raised the objection for the first time when her claim was rejected due to wrong name mentioned in the insurance policy and no representation or complaint was earlier moved to answering Opposite Party in that regard by the complainant. It is submitted that as a goodwill gesture, OP No.2 asked the complainant to furnish affidavit with necessary information attested by notary, but till today no affidavit has been given by her and because of the failure on the part of complainant in not providing any affidavit, the settlement of insurance claim was delayed.  It is admitted that OP No.2 has tie-up with OP No.3 with respect to Insurance Policy only, but denied that the name of complainant was intentionally wrongly mentioned, as alleged.  It is stated that there is no negligence on the part of OP No.2 as her name has been mentioned as Vandana Kishor was in her knowledge from the beginning when the mobile was purchased and she never objected to it. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party NO.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

         OPs No.3 & 4 did not turn up despite service of notice sent through regd. post on 30.6.2017, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 2.8.2017.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of reply filed by the respective OPs.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       It is right to mention that the complainant purchased mobile handset Model OPPO F1S from OP No.1 on 20.9.2016 for an amount of Rs.17,9990/- and get it financed from Opposite Party No.2 and thereafter get the handset insured from Opposite Party No.3 through Opposite Party No.2 and these facts are not disputed in the present complaint.  Further, it is not disputed that the said mobile handset got damaged (screen damaged) and then due repair bill was prepared for Rs.4170/-. For the reimbursement of repair bill the complainant approached Insurance Company/OP No.3 through OP No.2, but her request for reimbursement of repair cost was not acceded to on the ground that there was some discrepancy with regard to the name of the complainant as reflected in the insurance policy and purchase invoice; as in invoice the name of the complainant is written as Vandana whereas in the insurance record her name reflects as Vandana Kishor.  

 

7]       The complainant on her part duly submitted the copy of her Aadhaar Card and PAN Card along with purchase invoice dated 20.9.2016 in order to get her name corrected in the insurance policy, so that her claim be paid.  It is observed that in all three documents (Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and Purchase invoice) the name of the complainant has been mentioned as Vandana and in our opinion all these documents are relevant/sufficient enough to make necessary correction in the name of the complainant which was wrongly mentioned by OPs No.2 & 3 as Vandana Kishor in the Finance documents as well in insurance policy.  It is outcome of the pleadings as well as arguments of OPs NO.2 that there is a requirement of affidavit from complainant, so that her claim be paid.  In our considered opinion, the said requirement of affidavit from complainant by Opposite Party NO.2 is not legitimate when there are clear cut and authentic proofs furnished by the complainant showing her correct name/identity.  It is surprising that how the finance company as well as insurance company i.e. OPs NO.2 & 3 have entered the name of the complainant wrongly as Vandana Kishor in the finance documents as well as in insurance policy, when the name of the complainant has rightly been mentioned as Vandana in the purchase invoice.  It seems that this discrepancy has occurred at the end of Opposite Party No.2 (financer) through whom the name of the complainant has wrongly been mentioned as Vandana Kishor in the insurance policy as it is admitted by Opposite Party No.2 that it has tie-up with Opposite Party No.3 with respect to insurance policy. The Opposite Party No.2 has also not brought on record any document on file proving that the complainant ever submitted any document to it wherein her name is mentioned as Vandana Kishor, as a result, her name as Vandana Kishor has wrongly been mentioned in the finance documents and through OP No.2 in the insurance policy.

 

8]       In our considered opinion, the complainant had suffered a lot for the wrong which has been committed by Opposite Party No.2. We also opine that the demand of the Opposite Party NO.2 qua furnishing of an affidavit by the complainant in this regard, is totally unjustified and irrelevant, when the complainant had duly submitted the authentic documents i.e. Aadhaar Card, Pan Card and Purchase Invoice, mentioning her name as Vandana. Hence, the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party NO.2 is writ large.  The Opposite Party No.3 is also liable to pay the claim of the complainant being genuine and not disputed,

 

9]       In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed against Opposite Party No.2 & 3 and be dismissed qua OPs NO.1 & 4. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 (Bajaj Finserv Pvt. Ltd. & CPP Assistance Service Pvt. Ltd.) in the following manner:-

1. OP No.3 shall reimburse the amount of Rs.4170/-, being the repair cost of the mobile handset (Ann.C-4), to the complainant;

 

2. OP No.2 shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for causing her mental & physical harassment for its deficiency in service along with litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.3000/-

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.2 & 3 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the amount as mentioned in sub-para (i) & (ii) above from the date of filing complaint till realization.

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

16^th November, 2017             

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER