STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.315-316, Ground Flood, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.                                                                                                                              …Appellant

                                                  Versus

1. Pallavi Sharma, R/O 919, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana.

2.Gizmolhelp, Corporate Office, 76-B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV,  Gurgaon,Haryana                                                                                                                                                    ……Respondents

             Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986                against  order dated 01.2.2018 passed by District Consumer                         Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. Chandigarh in C.C.No.No.                          269/2017.

Argued by:  Mr.Gaurav  Verma,  Advocate for the appellant.

                     Mr.B.R.Madan,Advocate for  respondent No.1.

BEFORE:       JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                 Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has filed this appeal against order dated 1.2.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), allowing a complaint filed by respondent No.1 /complainant.     

2.          As per facts on record, the complainant purchased one Apple iphone-6 on 5.11.2015 from one company Croma, Chandigarh, on payment of Rs.55,000/-. Through OP No.2/respondent No.2 the mobile handset was got insured by paying premium of Rs.2499/-. It is on record that at one point of time, immediately on purchase, the mobile handset went defective and on request made, it was replaced by the seller company.  On 26.7.2016, mobile handset accidently slipped from the hand of complainant and fell on the road, as a result of which, its screen was damaged. It stopped working.  On 8.8.2016, the mobile handset was handed over to the appellant for repair.  Admittedly the said mobile set was under insurance and further under warranty also.  Instead of mentioning the date, as referred to above, on the receipt it was mentioned as 30.8.2016. Claim of the complainant was rejected on 17.8.2016.  It was stated that damage caused was not covered under the terms and conditions of the Policy.  When the complainant failed to get any result, she sent legal notice claiming refund of the amount paid, however, nothing was done by the OPs. 

3.            OP No.2/respondent No.2, despite service, failed to turn up before the Forum and was proceeded against ex parte on 28.4.2017.  

4.          Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 filed reply. It was admitted that the mobile handset was received in a damaged condition. Claim form was submitted to the insurance company/OP No.2 for approval.  However, claim of the complainant was rejected.  It was specifically stated that the appellant has no role to play in rejection of the insurance claim, which was rejected by the above said concern.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in providing service on the part of the appellant, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in providing service on the part of the OPs.  When forming above opinion, it was observed as under;

 “The complainant has purchased the mobile telephone Apple iPhone 6 for Rs.55,000/- on 5.11.2015.  The mobile telephone was insured with Opposite Party No.2 through Opposite Party No.1 while purchasing the same on payment of Rs.2499/- vide Ann.C-I.  The telephone was damaged on 26.7.2016 within warranty period and under insurance coverage by felling on road after sudden slip from the hand of the complainant.  There was no intentional and willful lapse on the part of the complainant. The telephone was damaged by accidental fall and such loss by way of damage is fully covered under the insurance.  The claim of the complainant is genuine and the Opposite Party No.2 has rejected the claim without any cogent and valid reason. The decision of Opposite Party No.2 regarding rejection of claim of the complainant is outrageous and as such amounts to deficiency of service. 

6.          On giving above finding, both the OPs jointly and severally were ordered to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.55,000/- with interest @12% whereof 17.8.2016 till realization.  Further an amount of Rs.5000/-was granted towards litigation expenses. Awarded amount was ordered to be paid in a time bound manner, failing which, it was to entail penal consequences.

7.            Counsel for the appellant, by referring to documents Annexure A-2 & A-3, has vehemently contended that it was OP No.2/respondent No.2 which is to blame.  The appellant has nothing to do with the insurance transaction between the parties and further the mobile handset was also not purchased through it.  It received the handset only being an authorized service Centre.  The argument raised, at the first instance, appears to be very attractive, however, when we look into the facts of the case it is to be ignored. It is not in dispute that the appellant is an authorized service Center of seller company and also it has arrangement with OP No.2 to effect service in cases where mobile handset covered under the Policy is offered for repair/replacement.                     During arguments, it has also come to our notice that from the date of receipt of the mobile handset, it was never returned by the appellant to the complainant.  It was contended that when the claim qua mobile handset was rejected by OP No.2 on 17.8.2016, she was asked to collect it, however, she failed to do so. Such a stand was not taken before the Forum.  There is not a single document to show that ever the complainant was intimated to receive back the defective mobile handset.  The mobile handset is in  possession of the appellant for the last two years.  It may have caused a major loss to the complainant. On this score also, liability can be fastened upon the appellant.

8.        Furthermore, it is on record that the appellant is an authorized representative and if the claim is wrongly rejected, it is also supposed to share the liability with the insurer.  Liability imposed is joint and several.  If the appellant feels that it was not to be burdened with the same it can recover the amount paid from OP NO.2/respondent No.2. Poor consumer is suffering.  It is her specific case that when the mobile handset was purchased the seller offered insurance at that time. At the time of arguments, it came to our notice that the mobile handset was also replaced at one point of time by the appellant.    We are of the opinion that the view rendered by the Forum is perfectly justified.  No case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.  

9.               For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is  dismissed,  with no order as to costs. The order of the District  Forum is upheld.  

10.          Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

11.          The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.