Dealer Responsible For Repairing Product If Insurance Facilitated Through Them : Uttarakhand State Commission
Ayushi Rani
2 Dec 2024 1:00 PM IST
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Mr. M. K. Singhal and Mr. C.M. Singh held a dealer responsible for the repair/ replacement of the product as the insurance was indirectly facilitated by them and the customer had already paid the insurance premium.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant purchased an OPPO F1s mobile from a dealer for ₹17,000 and insured it through the dealer for ₹1,749; the phone was later damaged in an accident. The complainant approached the dealer, who instructed him to send the phone to the insurance company. The complainant paid ₹1,500 as claim processing charges, but the insurance company neither replaced nor repaired the phone. The company stated that the dealer had not completed the necessary insurance paperwork. As a result, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against both the dealer and the insurance company, seeking ₹17,000 for the phone, ₹1,749 for the insurance, ₹1,500 for repair charges, ₹50,000 for business losses, ₹10,000 for mental distress, and ₹15,000 for legal costs. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the dealer to pay Rs. 17,000 as compensation for the damaged phone and Rs. 5,000 for litigation costs. Consequently, the dealer appealed before the State Commission of Uttarakhand.
Contentions of the dealer
The dealer argued that the District Commission's decision was illegal and unjust, claiming it ignored the dealer's written statement and evidence. The dealer stated that the complainant directly insured the mobile handset with the insurance company, and not through them. Therefore, the dealer had no responsibility for the handset's damage or replacement, which was the insurance company's duty. The dealer further explained that the complainant was not their consumer, as the insurance contract was between the complainant and the insurance company. The dealer had only paid the premium in advance to the insurer. Based on these points, the dealer requested the appeal be allowed and the District Commission's order set aside.
Observations by the State Commission
The State Commission reviewed the records and found that a valid transaction took place between the dealer and the complainant, establishing a “seller” and “consumer” relationship. As the seller, the dealer was responsible for repairing or replacing the damaged handset, as the complainant had paid the insurance premium. The Commission concluded that the District Commission had properly exercised its authority, and there was no error in the judgment. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision was affirmed.
Case Title: Rajiv Agarwal Vs. Sh. Divesh Dhaunia
Case Number: F.A. No. 151/2018
