Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/677/2017

Supreet Gill - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	677 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	05.09.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	13.11.2017

 

 

 

 

Supreet Gill s/o Sh.Harvinder Singh, R/o Eclerx Services Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Tower A & B, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh.

                               …..Complainant

Versus

1]  One Assist Consumer Solutions Private Limited, 707-708-709, Acme Plaza, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 259

2]  HCL Services Ltd. (MI Exclusive Centre, SCO 2471/72, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.  

                      ….. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING    MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER

                               

Argued by :    

Complainant in person

Opposite Party No.1 & 2 exparte

 

  

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a mobile handset Model Mi4i Dark Grey 16 G from MI official website www.MI.Com vide retail invoice dated 25.6.2016 for an amount of Rs.11,999/- and get it insured it from Opposite Party No.1. It is averred that the said mobile handset started giving problem after its purchase and was repaired 2-3 times at HCL Service Ltd., but still the defects are persisting.  It is averred that the defects in the handset included hanging, auto reboot, temp issues, camera issues, camera focusing issues and speech cut issue. It is averred that the mobile in question was repaired by the Opposite Party No.2/Service Centre on 11.5.2015 and 16.6.2017 by replacing its mainboard/mother board (Ann.C-2 & C-3), but still the mobile handset was giving problem. 

 

         It is submitted that on 10.7.2017 the complainant was cycling and met with a small accident due to which the handset screen was damaged.  It is also submitted that as the phone of the complainant was insured with Opposite Party No.1, so complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 for the claim of damaged mobile phone, but the same was refused by it on the pretext that the complainant has not informed to Opposite Party No.1 about the new changed IMEI number. It is averred that the complainant apprised Opposite Party No.1 that the mobile phone in question has been repaired by Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party NO.2 has changed the motherboard of the said phone twice and they have not even informed the complainant this fact while delivering the handset after repairs.  Hence, alleging the refusal of claim as illegal and deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

 

2]       The Opposite Party NO.1 did not turn up despite service of notice sent through regd. post on 11.9.2017, hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.10.2017.

         The Opposite Party NO.2 after initially putting in appearance through Sh.Vipul Sharma, Advocate on 16.10.2017, failed to appear on the date fixed i.e. 9.11.2017 nor filed power of attorney, reply/evidence, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 9.11.2017.

 

3]       Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       In the present complaint, the complainant by placing on record the invoice of mobile phone in question and receipt at Page 7 & 15 for an amount of Rs.11,999/- and Rs.989.10 respectively, proved the purchase of the mobile in question and the insurance availed by him from Opposite Party No.1. The perusal of the e-mail dated 10.8.2017 reveals that the claim of the damaged mobile of the complainant has been rejected on the ground that complainant failed to update the new IMEI number of the mobile in their records, which got changed by replacing motherboard of the mobile in question twice by OP NO.2 (Service Centre).  The rejection of the claim of the complainant is highly objectionable for the simple reason that none came forward to explain or show that the complainant was under obligation to update the latest IMEI number in the records of the insurance company in case the same is changed while repairing the handset by replacing its motherboard.  There is no evidence to show that the complainant was ever intimated by the Service Centre/OP No.2 about the change of IMEI number of the mobile handset. 

 

6]       Further, the absence of Opposite Party No.1 draws an adverse inference that despite having knowledge of the dispute in question, it chose not to appear and it did not come forward to defend the claim of the complainant for the simple reason that either it admits the claim of the complainant or left with nothing to contradict the claim raised by the complainant. Moreover, the Opposite Party NO.2 despite putting in appearance did not file his power of attorney, reply & evidence despite availing adjournment and thus was proceeded against exparte.  The dispute in the present complaint relates to Opposite Party No.1 only as is liable to indemnify under the insurance availed by the complainant. The allegations of the complainant supported by duly sworn affidavit goes unrebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 is writ large.

 

7]       The complainant has not placed on record any document or repair quotation from authorised dealer to prove that the cost of the repair of the mobile handset or its damaged screen is Rs.7000/-, hence the same cannot be allowed as prayed for.  But certainly, he is entitled for reasonable amount in order to get repaired his damaged mobile.

8]       In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed against Opposite Party No.1. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Party No.1 and OP No.1 is directed as under:-

1. To pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant as repair charges (for screen replacement etc.);

 

2. To pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for causing him mental & physical harassment for deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses.

 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of filing complaint till realization

 

9]       However, the complaint qua Opposite Party NO.2 stands dismissed.

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

Announced

13^th November, 2017             

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER