Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 306
Instituted on : 20.08.2020
Decided on : 20.05.2024
Shashi Bhan age 29 years, s/o Sh. Jasbir Singh R/o village Paksma District Rohtak-124001. Haryana.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- Tele Services, SCF-42, Ground Floor, Opp. Heritage Hotel, HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001.
- Acko Technology & Services Ptv. Ltd.(Acko), Unit no.301, 3rd floor, E Wing, Lotus Corporate Park, Off Western Express Highway, Jay Coach, Goregaon East Mumbai-400063.
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Parmod Vashisth, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.1 already exparte.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had purchased a mobile phone Huawei Y9 in the name of his friend Virender and the same was insured with the opposite party No.2 valid upto 18.08.2020. The price of the mobile was Rs.15990 and the insurance amount Rs.599/-. On 20.05.2020 the display of the mobile was broken, so he sent an email to the opposite party no.2 on dated 21.05.2020 and informed about the display broken of his mobile set. Complainant handed over his mobile to the opposite party No.1 for repair of the said mobile. Opposite party no.1 returned the alleged mobile after repair and also handed over a bill no.253 dated 13.06.2020 amounting to Rs.4321/- to the complainant. Complainant sent the alleged bill to the opposite party No.2 but the opposite party no.2 refused to give the claim amount on the ground that the complainant had to send the computer generated bill. Complainant contacted the opposite party no.1 to provide the computer generated bill for the insurance claim but the opposite party no.1 refused for the same. Complainant told the same to the opposite party no.2 but they denied to pay the claim without computer generated bill. The act of opposite party no.2 is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party no.2 be directed to give the insurance claim alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., and also to pay Rs.20000/- on account of compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No.1 received back served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 and as such opposite party no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.07.2022 of this Commission. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that after getting intimation regarding damage of mobile from complainant, opposite party for processing the service request of the complainant, requested the complainant to provide following documents:
i) Original mobile invoice copy of old mobile in PDF format.
ii) Original Mobile P-slip of Old mobile in PDF format.
iii) Mobile repair invoice copy from authorized service centre with IMEI Number documented.
iv) Repaired mobile images(Require at least one image(not screenshot) alongwith IMEI number reflecting on the screen.
But the complainant did not provide the same and as such opposite party closed the service request of the complainant. Claim of the complainant is not maintainable due to the above said reasons. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence on dated 14.10.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on 13.12.2022.
4. We have heard the complainant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, it is not disputed that as per bill Ex.C2, one mobile was purchased by the complainant in the name of Virender for a sum of Rs.16589/-. As per Ex.C4 complainant had also taken mobile protection plan for Rs.599/- from the opposite party No.2. As per Acko All-Round Protection Plan Ex.C5, the mobile phone of the complainant was also covered under ‘Accidental external physical damage’. In the present case also there was physical damage to the mobile i.e. display broken. As per bill Ex.C3 opposite party No.1 had charged Rs.4321/- from the complainant and complainant applied for insurance claim with the opposite party No.2 but the same has not been paid to the complainant during insurance period. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply and affidavit has submitted that they demanded some documents from the complainant in PDF format but the complainant did not provide the same. On the other hand, contention of the complainant is that he is a layman and was having no knowledge to submit the documents in PDF format. He provided all the documents to the service centre and it was the duty of the service centre to provide the copy of bill of the product after mentioning the IMEI number and other required documents to the insurance company in PDF format for processing the claim of the complainant but the same was not done. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 did not appear before this Commission despite service and was proceeded against exparte. As such it is presumed that opposite party No.1 has nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations levelled by the complainant against the opposite party No.1 stands proved. On the other hand, complainant has also placed on record all the documents e.g. copy of bill & insurance etc. The mobile in question was duly insured with the opposite party no.2 at the time of its damage and it was the duty of the opposite party no.2 to pay the claim amount to the complainant but the claim has not been paid to the complainant despite his repeated requests. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and opposite party no.2 is liable to compensate the complainant. As per bill Ex.C3, complainant had spent an amount of Rs.4321/- on the repair of his mobile and he is entitled for the said amount. It is also observed that the bill of mobile & repair are in the name of Virender but at the time of filing the present, Sh. Virender s/o Kulbir has filed an affidavit to the effect that in the present case, he has no objection to give the claim amount, if any, to Shashi Bhan i.e. complainant. Complainant is user of the mobile phone. So he is entitled for the claim amount. Hence opposite party No.2 is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.4321/-(Rupees four thousand three hundred and twenty one only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 20.08.2020 till its realisation. Opposite party No.2 is further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
20.05.2024
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
