Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/287

Sukhpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishna Commumications - Opp.Party(s)

Vipan Kumar Tayal

22 Jan 2019

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                                 287 of 2017

Date of Institution :            1.09.2017

Date of Decision :            22.01.2019

 

Sukhpreet Singh aged about 26 years son of Parshotam Lal son of Mukhtiar Singh r/o Street No.12-B, Hari Nagar, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. Krishna Communicationa, Dealer of Samsung Co. Situated Opposite City Kotwali, Near Bhai Kanhaiya Chowk, Faridkot through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Apps Daily Solutions Pvt Limited Regd. Office D- 3137 Oberio Garden Estates, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri, (E) Mumbai-400072 through its M.D./Authorized Signatory.

                                ....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

          Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member.

Present:     Sh Vipan Tayal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

                 OPs Exparte.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                             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 and for also directing

cc no. 287 of 2017

Ops to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.7,000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a mobile phone of Samsung model J S from OP-1 vide bill no. 2826 dt 27.08.2016 worth Rs.11,500/- and at the time of purchase, OP-1 insisted complainant to purchase apps daily mobile protection platinum plan by paying Rs.1,249/- 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. On assurance of OP-1, complainant paid Rs.1,249/- to OP-1 and got activated the protection feature of OP-2 through OP-1. It is submitted that on 10.07.2017, display of said mobile phone did not work and it was off. 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 suggested him to lodge a complaint with OP-2 on customer helpdesk toll free number. Complainant did the same but nothing good happened. Complainant made several requests to OPs to settle his genuine claim but they refused to do the needful. Legal notice dated 11.08.2017 served by complainant to OPs through his counsel also served no purpose. 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.7,000/- as litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

 

cc no. 287 of 2017

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 5.09.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                Notice issued to OP-1 was duly served through Process Server and notice sent to OP-2 through RC AD did not receive back undelivered and is presumed to be served. No body appeared in the Forum on behalf of OPs either in person or through Counsel to contest the case. Statutory period expired and when OPs did not appear in the Forum even after long waiting on date fixed, then both the OPs were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.11.2017.

5                                                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 8 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                              As there is no rebuttal from OPs side, therefore, ld counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant purchased a mobile phone of Samsung from OP-1 vide bill Ex C-2, dt 27.08.2016 worth Rs.11,500/- and at the time of purchase, OP-1 insisted complainant to purchase apps daily mobile protection platinum plan by paying Rs.1,249/- 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 paid Rs.1,249/- to OP-1 and got activated the protection feature of OP-2 through OP-1. On 10.07.2017, display of said mobile phone did not work and it was off. Complainant immediately reported the matter to OP-1 and

cc no. 287 of 2017

requested him to get replaced or repaired the same from OP-2, but OP-1 suggested him to lodge a complaint with OP-2 on customer helpdesk toll free number. Complainant did the same but despite repeated requests OP-2 did not redress his grievance. Legal notice dated 11.08.2017 served by complainant to OPs through his counsel also served no purpose. 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.

7                                        We have heard learned counsel for complainant 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-4 clearly reveals the pleadings of complainant that he got insured his mobile from OP-2 against any defect, damage or theft  on payment of Rs.1,249/-. Ex C-5 copy of legal notice points towards the fact that complainant made requests to OPs through his counsel to redress his grievance. 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

cc no. 287 of 2017

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 give a new mobile phone of same model to the complainant in replacement of his old defective phone within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. Complainant is directed to return the defective mobile phone which was given to him by OP-2 on receipt of the new mobile phone. OP-2 is further directed to pay Rs 5,000/-to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs 2,000/-as cost of litigation. 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: 22.01.2019

(Parampal Kaur)                 (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                              President