Haryana

Panchkula

CC/64/2017

ALISHA SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ONE ASSIST CONSUMER SOLUTIONS . - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

15 Jan 2018

ORDER

Before the District Consumer, Dispute Redressal, Forum, Panchkula.

Consumer Complaint No.	:	64 of 2017
Date of Institution;	:	20.3.2017
Date of Decision	:	15.1.2018

 

Alisha Sharma, 482, Harmilap Nagar, Baltana SAS Nagar.

…….Complainant

Versus

1. One Assist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Acme Plaza, Opposite Big Cinemas, Andheri East Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400059.
2. Current Technology Retail (India) Limited SCO 36, Ground Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula, 134113.
3. B2X Customer Service SCO 534, First Floor, Sohna Road, SAS Nagar, 160055.

….. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Before :             Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

                        Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

                       

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        OP No.1 already ex-parte vide order dated 21.7.2017.

Mr. Amit Malhotra authorized representative for the OP NO.2.

                        Mr. Sunil Kaushik, Advocate for the OP NO.3.

 

Order

(Dharampal president)

1.  

2.              Upon notice, OPs NO.2 and 3 appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate written statement by taking preliminary objections.

3.             In the written version OP NO.2 has stated that the OP No.2 is one of the authorized retailers for the products supplied and marketed by Apple (India) Pvt. Ltd. It is also submitted that M/s One Assist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. performs Mobile Insurance Services for the Apple I-Phones sold by the OP No.2 and M/s B2X Customer Service is an authorized Service Provider of Apple (India) Pvt. Ltd. whereby each of these entities perform their activities independently and are separate legal entities. The OP NO.2 also submitted that the complainant out of her own interest purchased the Apple I Phone 6, 16GB Space Grey Mobile having serial No.359263062850632 along with Tempered Glass Screen protection vide Retail Sales Invoice dated 30.4.2015 for Rs. 52,500/- via credit card. Thereafter, on 24.5.2015 the complainant approached the OP NO.2 for purchase of Mobile Insurance of the first OP with the Description “Damage Pro Damage Protect” for Rs. 2,899/- via credit card. The OP NO.2 was not a party to the transaction held between the complainant and the OP NO.1 and OP NO.3 and the OP NO.2 was nowhere involved in the communication which the complainant had with the OPs NO.1 and 3, therefore, the OP NO.2 is not in position to reply to the same.  It is wrong that the OP NO.2 had claimed the delivery report to be the replacement letter and it is hereby clarified that the OP NO.2 had actually requested the complainant to approach the OP No.1 or OP No.3, the authorized service provider of Apple Pvt. Ltd. for getting the replacement letter since the  OP NO.2 is not authorized to provide any insurance related services and/or the after sales services to the Mobile phone in question. It is the OP NO.3, who had replaced the subject device in previous occasion.  The OP NO.2 tried every possible effort to help the complainant in finding a solution to the mobile phone in issue. As a retailer it has passed on the mobile insurance provided by the OP NO.1 to the complainant at the time of sale of the product and the same got expired on 23^rd May, 2016. It is an implied contract between the complainant and the OP No.1 that any issue pertaining to the insurance of the product should be addressed by the OP NO.1 only. As such the OP NO.2 shall not be held responsible for the insurance related issues between the complainant and the OP No.1 nor the OP NO.2 be responsible with regard to the after sales services provided by the OP NO.3 to the complainant.  The OP No.2 had no role to play to the services availed from other OP.

4.             In written version, OP No.3 has stated that the present complaint is not maintainable; the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The OP NO.3 is service centre and is only providing repair services as per norms of the company. It is not the duty of the OP No.3 to provide courtesy handset to complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

5.             Notice was issued to the OP No.1 through registered post, but none has appeared on behalf of the OP No. 1. It is deemed to be served and the OP No.1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.7.2017.

6.             The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R2/A and closed the evidence, counsel for the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure R3/A and has closed the evidence.

7.             We have heard complainant and learned counsel for the OPs NO.2 and 3 and also considered the written arguments filed by the OP NO.2 and have gone through the record carefully and minutely. 

8.             It is evident from Annexure C-1, copy of the retail invoice, that the complainant on 30.4.2015 purchased one Apple iphone 6, 16 GB from OP No.2 for Rs. 52,500/-. The complainant after paying another amount of Rs. 2,899/- to OP NO.2 purchased the insurance (Annexure C-2). The complainant submitted that the above said phone was replaced with new handset by the OP NO.3 in December, 2015 having serial No.352027079666498. The complainant renewed the insurance policy on 22^nd May, 2016 from OP NO.1 against the new handset bearing IMEI No. 322027079666498 for Rs. 2,899/-. On 29^th December, 2016 the phone in question was got damaged, its screen broken. The complainant lodged the claim with the OP NO.1. All the formalities as required by the OP No.1 were complied by the complainant. However vide email dated 25.2.2017, the OP No.1 informed to the complainant that in view of the documents submitted the claim has been approved and assessed as Beyond Economic Repair (BER) for net approved amount  Rs. 20,244/- is arrived at post deductions of deductibles listed in the below calculation table. As per the calculation the sum insured Rs. 52,500/-, the market value of handset was valued Rs. 34,990/- and estimated value was assessed Rs. 41,719 and net approved amount to be paid to the complainant has been shown Rs. 20,244/-.

9.             The stand taken by the OP NO.2 is that the OP No.2 is one of the authorized retailers for the products supplied and marketed by the Apple (India) Private Limited. The insurance for the handset was sold by the OP NO.1 to the complainant. The OP NO.3 is neither the manufacturer of the mobile phone nor its assurance nor does any mobile insurance service for the Apple product nor its any Apple sale service of the Apple mobile in question. The OP NO.2 admitted that the complainant purchased the above said mobile phone on 30.4.2015 for Rs. 52,500/- and also purchased mobile insurance on 25.5.2015 with the description “Damage Pro Damage Protect” for an amount of Rs. 2,899/-. It is further submitted that any issue pertaining to the insurance of product should be addressed by OP NO.1 as the OP NO.2 shall not be held responsible for the insurance related issues between the complainant and the OP No.1. It is further submitted that the OP NO.2 is not liable for any deficiency in service.

10.            The purchase of handset as well as insurance policy is admitted by the OP NO.2. Evidently, the complainant lodged the claim with the OP NO.1, vide email dated 25.2.2017 and approved an amount payable for the above said damage phone has been settled for Rs. 20,244/-, which is not accepted by the complainant and the present complaint has been filed.

11.            As already  noticed in an earlier part of this order, OP No.1 did not opt to enter appearance in the matter and thereby refrained from making a contest to the veracity of the averments made in the complaint. An ideal judicial deliberation would conceptualize a contest between a claimant and the person against whom the grievance is made by the former. In the matter, all the foundational averments are much against the OP1 which has opted to refrain from  entering appearance . The present is, thus, a case wherein the averments made by the complainant on affidavit are uncontroverted. The only inference which can be culled out of the available scenario is that  the averments made by the complainant have to be upheld and we hold so accordingly.

12.            In view of forgoing discussion we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed against the OP NO.1. Accordingly the complaint is allowed against the OP NO.1 and OP No.1 is directed as under:-

i)      To pay Rs. 52,500/- to the complainant as per terms and conditions for the protection/insurance cover.

ii)      To pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and inconvenience cause to the complainant.

iii)     The OP1 shall pay an amount  of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation.

13.          This order shall be complied by the OP nO.1 within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the OP NO.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. However, the complaint qua OPs NO.2 and 3 stand dismissed. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

15.1.2018                 ANITA KAPOOR                   DHARAM PAL

                                         MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                                                                DHARAM PAL

                                                        PRESIDENT