Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/75/2020

Shobha bharti - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s One Assist Consumer Solutions Private Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar Adv.

12 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	75/2020
Date of Institution	:	29.01.2020
Date of Decision	:	12.04.2021

 

                                       

                       

 

Shobha Bharti w/o Sh.Pradeep Kumar aged about 31 years r/o H.No.E-706, Aero Home, Zirakpur, District Mohali.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1.     M/s One Assist Consumer Solutions Private Ltd., PO Box No.7417, J.B. Nagar, Post Office, Mumbai-400059 through its Managing Director.

2.     M/s Home Credit India Finance Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.3019, Second Floor, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

 

3.     M/s Ashoka Enterprises, Shop No.4-5, Nayagaon, District Mohali, Punjab through its Proprietor/Partner.

 

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:
		SHRI RAJAN DEWAN,	PRESIDENT
		SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	MEMBER
		SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for Complainant.
	Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for the OP No.1 Sh.Jobanpreet Singh, Adv. for OP No.2 OP No.3 exparte.

 

      

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that  she purchased a mobile phone make Samsung A-30 (64 GB) from OP No.3 vide Invoice dated 23.03.2019 for Rs.16,990/-  by raising loan from OP No.2 and the same was insured with OP No.1 against theft, physical damage, burglary and liquid damage for the period from 23.03.2019 to 21.03.2020.  According to the complainant, the mobile phone damaged on 07.12.2019 and OPs No.1 and 2 were also informed regarding the same.  As per the directions of OP No.1, she downloaded and provided all the information/documents to them.  It was alleged that OP No.2 rejected the claim without assigning any reason. Finally, she got served a legal notice dated 24.12.2019 (Annexure C-3) upon the OPs and in response to the said legal notice, OP Nos.1 and 2 sent letters to the complainant to submit the documents  which were submitted separately vide e-mail dated 10.01.2020. Vide e-mail dated 10.01.2020, OP No.2 assured the complainant to resolve the issue within two working days but to no effect.  The complainant vide e-mail dated 21.01.2020 requested the OPs to settle the claim but all in vain. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.    
2.         In its separate written statement, OP No.1-M/s One Assist Consumer Solutions Private Ltd. took numerous preliminary objections.  On merits, it has been stated that  it is not liable to pay any claim and it was only required to facilitate the registering and processing the claim with the insurance company and it was the insurance company who is to settle the claim.   It has further been stated that the mobile phone in question was insured with HDFC Ergo. It has further been stated that it has provided the service to the complainant by processing the claim to the insurance company and it is the HDFC Ergo who is settle the claim.  It has further been stated that the claim was rejected on account of negligence as per the plan terms and conditions on the part of the complainant in handling  the mobile phone in question.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         In its separate written statement, OP No.2- M/s Home Credit India Finance Pvt. Ltd.  has pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and the same  is liable to be dismissed as it is not an appropriate party in the complaint. It has further been stated that OP No.2 is a non-banking financial company and is engaged in the business of granting loans for the purchase of consumer durables and  it had financed Rs.16,990/- for purchase of the mobile phone in question to the complainant and there are no dues against it.  It has further been pleaded that it has no role in issuance and/or facilitating issuance or repair of the mobile phone in question. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         OP No.3 was duly served through registered AD notices but despite due service they failed to put in appearance either in person or through any authorized representative and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.03.2021.
5.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OP No.1 controverting its stand and reiterating the averments as made in the complaint.
6.         We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties  and have gone through the documents on record as well as the written arguments of OP No.1.
7.         Admittedly, the Mobile Device Protection Membership Program was issued by OP No.1 to the complainant for the period from 23.03.2019 to 21.03.2020 on paying the membership fee of Rs.1683/- and availing the loan facility of OP No.2.  It is also an admitted fact that the mobile phone in question was damaged on 07.12.2019 i.e. during the existence of the protection/insurance policy and the complainant provided all the information/documents as required by OP No.1 for processing the claim.  As per the Mobile Device Protection Membership Program, the following benefits were available to the complainant:-

• Repair service for any repair request for your device arising from any breakage or liquid breakage.
• Maximum 2 repair requests during the period between start date and end date.
• Free pick up & delivery service.
• Dedicator call center 7 days a week.

8.         From the perusal of the above benefits available to the complainant, it is evident that, OP No.1 is liable to provide the repair services for repair of the mobile phone arising from any breakage or liquid breakage during the existing of the policy period. In the case in hand, the mobile phone was damaged within the existence of the said policy and as such OP No.1 is bound to get the mobile phone repaired from the service center irrespective of any breakage or liquid breakage.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that OP No.1 has committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by rejecting the claim.  However, it is not the case of the complainant that the mobile phone in question is not reparable and, therefore, she is entitled for refund of its price.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed qua OP No.1 and the same is accordingly allowed. OP No.1 is directed as under ;-

1. To get the mobile phone in question repaired from the service center, free of cost.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

                   This order be complied with by OP No.1, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) above shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides compliance of directions mentioned at Sr.No.(i) and (iii).

10.         The complaint qua OPs No.2 and 3 stands dismissed.
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced 12/04/2021	Sd/-
	(RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER