Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/504/2017

Ajay Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

One Assist Consumer Solution Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

20 Sep 2017

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/504/2017
Date  of  Institution	:	07/07/2017
Date   of   Decision	:	20/09/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Ajay Bansal son of Sh. Hukam Chand Bansal, C/o Infosys Limited, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

 

One Assist Consumer Solution Pvt. Ltd., 707-709, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400059, through its Grievance Redressal Officer.

…… Opposite Party 

 

BEFORE:   SH. RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased a new mobile (MI Redmi Note 4, 4GB RAM, 64 GB Internal Memory) from Flipkart.com on 25.02.2017 for Rs.12,999/-. The Complainant had taken the insurance for the mobile from the Opposite Party after paying the requisite premium. It has been averred that the screen of the aforesaid mobile got broken on 10.04.2017 for which the Complainant was to get the claim as per the policy. It has been alleged that the Complainant raised his concern with the concerned authorities of the Opposite Party, but even after lots of communication he did not get any response and claim. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Party, seeking its version of the case. Since, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.     Complainant led evidence.

 

4.     We have heard the Complainant in person and have also perused the record, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

5.     In the present case, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Party, who was duly served, and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through its Counsel. It is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The Opposite Party have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice, as it was incumbent upon it (Opposite Party) to promptly redress the concern of the Complainant, which it did not, even after specific requests of the Complainant. Also, the Opposite Party did not bother to air the grievance of the Complainant when contacted by him and even the Complainant was not provided the courtesy handset by the Opposite Party. Moreover, when the Opposite Party did insurance of the mobile handset in question by receiving the premium of Rs.879.20/-, it was incumbent upon Opposite Party to indemnify the loss of the Complainant, which it miserably failed to do, resulting into immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence, Opposite Party cannot escape its liability and is liable to indemnify the loss to the Complainant. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against it.

 

6.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed:-

[a]  To pay Rs.10,399/- after applying 20% depreciation on the invoice price of the mobile handset amounting to Rs.12,999/- to the Complainant;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation.

 

7.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] and [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].  

 

8.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

20^th Sept.,2017                                    Sd/-   

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

                                           Sd/- 

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”