Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1080/2019

Ranjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Three Vee Marketing Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

25 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	1080/2019
Date of Institution	:	31.10.2019
Date of Decision	:	25.08.2023

 

                     

            

Ranjeet Singh s/o S.Gurmail Singh r/o H.No.797, Garden Colony, Kharar, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab-140301.

                 ...  Complainant

Versus

 

1]  M/s Three Vee Marketing Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1028-29, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Authroized Signatory.

 

2]  M/s CPP Assistance Services Pvt. Ltd., R.O.A-370, 2^nd Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

 

Local Address: SCO No.58, First Floor, Sec. 17, Chandigarh

 

3]  M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd., 1^st & 2^nd Floor, SCO No.57-58-59, Opp. Taj Hotel, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh 160017.

 

4]  M/s HDFC ERGO Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered & Corporate Office: 1^st Floor, 165-166, Backbay Reclamation, H.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

…. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:
	Sh.Kartik, Counsel for the complainant OP No.1 exparte. Sh.Vijay Mangla, Counsel for OP No.2 Sh.Varun Sharma, Cuonsel for OP No.3. Sh.Sihant Adv., Proxy for Sh.Nitesh Signhi, Counsel for OP No.4 (Defence of OP No.4 already struck off)

   

PER B.M. SHARMA, MEMBER

         Concisely put, the complainant purchased a mobile phone make Vivo V11 from the OP No.1 vide Invoice dated 23.11.2018 for Rs.20,990/-. The same was duly insured by it through OP No.2 by paying a sum of Rs.2574/-. The complainant was given assurance that the same was to be replaced by the OPs No.1 and 2 in case it breaks during handling.  After some days, the mobile phone broke down and became totally defective. The complainant reported the matter to the OPs No.1 and 2 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 seeking directions to the OPs to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.

 

2]       Despite due service through registered post, the OP No.1 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.02.2020.

         In its written statement, the OP No.2- M/s CPP Assistance Services Pvt. Ltd. has stated that they are not the insurance company and their role was limited to getting the mobile phone insured by an insurance company which was discharged by getting the same insured with OP No.4- M/s HDFC ERGO Insurance Co. Ltd. It has further been stated that the claim, if any, is to be settled by OP No.4 and not by them. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, OP No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         In its separate written statement, the OP No.3- M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd. has stated that the complaint qua it is not maintainable because there is no allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3. They have only provided the financial assistance to the complainant to purchase the product in question and to pay the premium of the insurance coverage. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, OP No.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         Since OP No.4 failed to file the reply and evidence within the stipulated period of 45 days and as such its defence was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 19.12.2022.

 

3]       The Complainant filed replication to the written version of OP No.2 controverting their stand and reiterating his own.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.

 

6]       From the perusal of the record especially Ann.OP-2/A & OP-3/4 attached with the written version of the OPs No.2 & 3, it is evident that the complainant was issued Membership known as FoneSafe Classic T3 Plan having membership No.IM2132076 on payment of Rs.2574/- valid from 23.11.2018 to 22.11.2019 in respect of his mobile phone in question. The complainant has specifically stated in the complaint that when the mobile phone broke down and he reported it to the OPs No.1 and 2 but they did not attend him.  Besides this, the act & conduct of the OP No.4-Insurance Company is also obvious from the fact that they chose not to file any written version and evidence supported with affidavit to the complaint and rather they moved the application seeking  directions to the  complainant to  supply the insurance number along with other details knowing fully well that the said information can easily be gathered either from OP No.2 or from the Finance Company/OP-3 but they did not do this for the reasons best known to them. Even the OP No.2 did not provide any assistance to the complainant to get his rightful claim from the insurance company i.e. OP No.4. If the IMEI No. of the mobile phone is not correctly mentioned in the welcome letter even then the complainant cannot be made to suffer for the same because it was the responsibility of OP No.2 to get the same rectified from OP No.4 as per the details mentioned in the invoice. Keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the present case, the matter is set at rest by directing the OPs No.2 & 4 to pay the value of the mobile phone in question, after applicable depreciation, to the complainant and compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him as the complainant cannot be denied his rightful claim.

 

7]       In view of the above discussion & findings, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed qua OPs No.2 & 4. The OPs NO.2 & 4 are directed to pay the insured value of the mobile phone in question to the complainant i.e. Rs.16,792/- (after applying 20% depreciation on the cost of mobile phone during first year per policy), along with lumpsum compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- towards harassment, agony and litigation expenses.

         This order be complied with by OPs No.2 & 4 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amounts shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment.

 

8]       The complaint qua the remaining OPs No.1 & 3 stands dismissed.  

 

9]       The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

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

Announced

25.08.2023                                                                    Sd/-

(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER