Punjab

Sangrur

CC/565/2015

Sumit Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Snapdeal - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Baljit Singh Nehal

10 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                        Complaint No. 565

Instituted on:  06.07.2015

                                                                        Decided on:    10.02.2016

 

Sumit Garg son of Brij Lal Garg, resident of H.No.33, Street No.2, Agar Nagar, Gaushala Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

1.     Snapdeal/Jasper Infotech Private Limited, 1^st Floor, 246, Okhla Industrial Estate, phase-III, New Delhi-110 020 through its authorized signatory.

2.     Angle Inc. E-250, Road No.13, Vishavkarma Industrial Area, Sikar Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through its authorize signatory.

3.     HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Sangrur through its Branch Manager. 

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri B.S.Nehal, Advocate                           

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1       :             Shri Gurpreet Singh, Advocate

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2              :      Exparte. 

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3              :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Advocate.                   

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   K.C.Sharma, Member

                   Sarita Garg, Member

           

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shri Sumit Garg, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one I Phone6 64 GB from OP number 1 through the registered ID of Sarthi, shop number 5, near HDFC Bank Limited, Kaula Park, Sangrur vide credit card number 4577041001147254 of the complainant in instalments on 29.1.2015. At the time of its purchase,  it is stated that the OP number 3 has insured the mobile in question in case of loss, then the complainant is not required to pay any further instalment.  It is further stated that on 21.4.2015, the mobile set of the complainant was lost within the area of City Sangrur, the complainant tried his best, but the same was not found, despite lodging of DDR number 897138 dated 12.6.2015 with the police station City Sangrur.  It is further stated that the complainant gave the intimation to OP number 3 regarding the loss of the mobile set in question. It is further stated that the complainant received a telephonic call from OP number 3 that his monthly instalment is due, then the complainant apprised about the policy to Op number 3, but the OP number 3 got deposited the instalment of Rs.2900/- from the complainant in June 2015.  Thereafter the complainant requested number of times to OP number 3 to refund the amount of the instalments, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OP number 3 be directed not to raise the demand of further instalments and to refund the excess amount, so recovered and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and that the complainant has not purchased any product from the OP number 1.  On merits, it is denied that the OP sold any product to the complainant. It is stated that the complaint is regarding service of OP number 2 and 3 and there is nothing mentioned in the complaint against OP number 1, as such has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             Record shows that the OP number 2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded exparte.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present case, that the complainant has concealed material facts and documents from the Forum, as such, he is not entitled to any claim. The complainant has concealed the fact that there was no coverage of mobile loss as alleged by the complainant, rather the complainant had registered for ‘one assist feature with wallet facility. The said facility will cover only if the wallet is lost or stolen”.  The complainant availed only the wallet protection plan and not mobile protection plan, as such, it is stated that the complaint be dismissed. However, it is denied that the OP number 3 ever insured the mobile phone in case the mobile phone was lost.  The allegations of the complainant have been denied and stated further that the same are false and baseless. It is stated that there was no coverage for mobile loss/theft etc. It is stated that the Op number 3 is not liable to pay any claim.  However, any deficiency in service on the part the OP number 3 has been denied.

 

5.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of receipt dated 12.6.2015, Ex.C-3 copy of phone bill, Ex.C-4 copy of retail invoice dated 29.1.2015, Ex.C-5 copy of credit card statement and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1/1 affidavit,  Ex.OP1/A copy of resolution and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced  EXOP3/1 affidavit, Ex.OP3/2 copy of aadhar card, Ex.OP3/3 copy of application form, Ex.OP3/4 copy of PAN card, Ex.OP3/5 copy of confirmation letter dated 30.12.2014, Ex.OP3/6 copy of check list, Ex.OP3/7 copy of voucher, Ex.OP3/8 copy of application form, Ex.OP3/9 copy of email dated 16.5.2015, Ex.OP3/10 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP3/11 copy of schedule of charges, Ex.OP3/12 to Ex.OP3/17 copies of statement of accounts, Ex.OP3/18 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP3/19 original CD and closed evidence.

6.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the mobile in question in instalments through the credit card issued by OP number 3. It is also an admitted fact between the parties that the mobile in question was lost on 21.4.2015, of which DDR dated 12.6.2015 was duly lodged with the police station City Sangrur.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the mobile set in question was insured with the OP number 3 and it was agreed that in case of loss of the mobile set in question, the complainant is not required to pay further instalments, whereas the grievance of the complainant is that OP number 3 is recovering/demanding the remaining instalments of the loan.  On the other hand, the case of OP number 3 is that the allegations of the complainant regarding insurance of the mobile set are totally wrong and baseless nor he has paid any extra premium amount for any  insurance policy. It is contended by the learned counsel for OP number 3 that the complainant availed only “the Wallet Protection Plan  not Mobile Protection Plan”. 

 

8.             After carefully perusing whole of the case file and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to produce on record any insurance policy showing that the mobile in question was insured with the OP number 3 in case of its loss nor it is shown any document on record that in case of loss of the mobile set in question, the complainant is not required to pay any instalment to OP number 3.  The complainant has produced on record the copy of FIR Ex.C-2, but we feel that the same is not helpful to the case of the complainant.  Moreover, the complainant has to stand on his own legs by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to establish his claim as envisaged in the complaint. We have also perused the document ‘Wallet Assist’ issued by the One Assist Ex.OP3/18 to the complainant, wherein it is clearly mentioned that “With Wallet Assist, you are now ably protected against loss of your wallet, bank cards and identity cards, no matter where you are at home, at work or while travelling anywhere in the world”.  But, a bare perusal of it nowhere shows that the mobile in question was also insured with the OP number 3.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has no case of any deficiency in service against OP number 3 or Ops number 1 and 2, whereas no allegations of deficiency in service are leveled in the complaint against OP number 1 and 2.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.   A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.     

Pronounced.

 

                February 10, 2016.

 

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

 

                                                            (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

 

                                                             (Sarita Sharma)

                                                                 Member