Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/229

Karan Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Friends Communications - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep Singh Parmar

13 May 2019

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                                 229 of 2017

Date of Institution :           17.07.2017

Date of Decision :            13.05.2019

Karan Kapoor aged about 29 years son of Naresh Kumar  r/o K-79, Mohalla Khokhran Wala, Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. Friends Communications, K-2 Market, SCO-2, Near Airtel Showroom, Faridkot through its Authorized Signatory.
2.  Apps Daily Salutations Pvt Limited (Previously onward Mobility Solutions Pvt. (LTD) C-Wing 6^th Floor, Obero Garden Estates, Chandivali Form Road, Andheri, (E) Mumbai-400072.
3. Samsung, Head Office 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF PH-V Gurugram (Haryana) 122202.

                               ....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

          Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member.

Present:     Sh Amandeep Singh Parmar, Ld Counsel for complainant,

                 Sh Ashok Monga, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                 Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-3,

                 OP-2 Exparte.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                           

cc no. 229 of 2017

                                                   Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective mobile hand set with new one or to refund the cost of Rs.11,500/- and for also directing Ops to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.15,000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a mobile phone of Samsung J-5 model from OP-1 vide bill no. 2735 dt 15.09.2016 worth Rs.11,500/- and at the time of purchase, OP-1 assured complainant of good quality of said phone and also gave one year warranty. It is further submitted that at the instance of OP-1, complainant got insured his mobile phone from OP-2 against theft, burglary, liquid and physical damage and promised to replace the same with new one in case of any defect, damage or theft within warranty period. It is submitted that in July, 2017, display of said mobile phone damaged and it did not work. Complainant immediately brought this complaint into the notice of OP-1 and requested him to get replaced or repaired the same from OP-2, but OP-1 refused to hear his requests, misbehaved with complainant and said that his mobile cannot be repaired as Insurance Company has fled away. Complainant tried to convince OP-1 that they are duty bound to get his mobile repaired, but despite repeated requests, OP-1 did not pay any heed to genuine requests of complainant. All this has caused  great harassment and mental tension to him, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to pay Rs. 50,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc  and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

cc no. 229 of 2017

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 24.07.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                    Ld Counsel for OP-3 filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and averred that there is no deficiency in  service on their part. Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum. Complainant has concocted a false story and no cause of action arises against them. Dispute is between complainant and insurance company Op-2 and they have nothing to do in redressing the grievance of complainant. there is no defect in mobile in question and complainant has not placed on record any evidence to prove his allegations. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                                  OP-1 appeared in the Forum through counsel but despite availing sufficient opportunities, he did not file reply to the complaint matter and therefore, vide order dated 5.03.2019, defence of OP-1 was stood struck off.

6                                              Notice issued to OP-2 through RC AD did not receive back undelivered and it was  presumed to be served. On date fixed, no body appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-2 either in person or through Counsel to contest the case. Statutory period was expired and when OP-2 did not appear in the Forum even after long waiting and several calls, then OP-2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.09.2018.

 

cc no. 229 of 2017

7                                                Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 3 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                                 Ld Counsel for OP-3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Annidya Bose as ExOP-3/1 and document Ex OP-3/2 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-3.

9                                                Ld counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant purchased a mobile phone of Samsung from OP-1 vide bill Ex C-2, dt 15.09.2016 worth Rs.11,500/- and at the time of purchase, OP-1 insisted complainant to purchase apps daily mobile protection platinum plan to protect his mobile phone from theft, burglary, liquid and physical damage and promised to replace the same within 10 days in case of any damage or theft or repair guarantee of every kind from OP-2. Complainant got activated the protection feature of OP-2 through OP-1. In July, 2017, display of said mobile phone did not work and it was off. Complainant immediately reported the matter to OP-1 and requested him to get replaced or repaired the same from OP-2, but OP-1 did not redress his grievance. All this has caused  great harassment to him for which he has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. In reply, OP-3 stressed mainly on the point that there is no defect in the mobile in question. Dispute regarding insurance of mobile in question is between complainant and OP-2 and they have no role in redressing the grievance of complainant. Complainant has not produced any expert or documentary evidence to show that there was any manufacturing defect in said mobile phone. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3.

cc no. 229 of 2017

10                                        We have heard learned counsel for complainant and OP-3  and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant. After careful observation of the record placed on file and evidence led by complainant, it is observed that  from the bill Ex C-1, it is the clear that complainant purchased the mobile phone in question from OP-1. Ex C-3 clearly reveals the pleadings of complainant that he got insured his mobile from OP-2 against any defect, damage or theft  on payment. Through Ex C-1 complainant has reiterated his pleadings and grievance. There is no doubt that complainant purchased the mobile phone in question from OP-1 and got insured the same from OP-2. Said mobile became defective during the subsistence of insurance period for said phone. Grievance of complainant is that despite making several requests and issuance of legal notice to OPs, they did not replace or repaired his mobile phone, which amounts to deficiency in service. Had OPs paid any heed to hear the complaint of complainant and have provided effective services by doing repair of mobile in question or replaced the same, nature of complaint would have been different. We are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP-2. However, OP-1 is mere retailer and only sold the mobile handset to complainant. The insurance, if any, is given by OP-2. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. Hence, the present complaint is allowed against OP-2 and OP-2 is ordered to pay Rs.11,500/- to complainant on account of insurance claim for his  mobile phone, which was insured with OP-2. Complainant is directed to hand over the said mobile phone to OP-2 and OP-2 is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/-to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.

 

cc no. 229 of 2017

1,000/-as cost of litigation. Complaint against OP-3 is also dismissed. Compliance of the order be made in prescribed time failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint against OP-1 stands hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 13.05.2019

(Parampal Kaur)                 (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                              President