O R D E R
(By Sri D.Shankar Rao, Member)
1. The facts set out in the complaint in brief are that the complainant is studying Computer Science & Engineering (C.S.E) in college at Potheri Kattankalathur in Kanchipuram district of Chennai State. He purchased Samsung Galaxy Y Model No.S5360 mobile with IMEI No.35238401494344 on 21st July 2012 at Big-C Showroom in Nizamabad for Rs.7,800/- under bill No.28550168956. Unfortunately the said cell phone was stolen away by somebody on 2nd September 2012 when the complainant was in the college hostel. The matter was complained to hostel authority on the same day through E-mail, but no action has been taken. Subsequently the complainant gave written complaint to the Sub-Inspector of police Maraimalainagar on 16-09-2012. The police registered the case as 411/2012 and issued “LOST DOCUMENT CERTIFICATE” to the complainant. Further stated that the complainant has claimed for insurance claim with the opposite party in the month of October 2012, but it was rejected on account of “Lost cell phone at hostel ‘I’ Block”. Therefore, direct the opposite party to pay the cost of the cell phone Rs.7,142-86 ps. With 18% interest under the insurance claim with costs of the complaint.
2. The opposite party remained set-exparte throughout the proceedings.
3. During enquiry the complainant filed his evidence affidavit as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A12 documents and closed his evidence.
4. Heard Arguments.
5. The points for consideration are:-
1) Whether there is deficiency Service on the part of opposite party in rejecting the insurance claim ?
2) To what relief?
6. POINT No.1 & 2 : The case of complainant is that he purchased Samsung Galaxy Y Model No.S5360 mobile with IMEI No.35238401494344 on 21st July 2012 at Big “C” showroom in Nizamabad for Rs.7,800/- under bill No.28550168956. The said mobile have insurance coverage from the opposite party company. Unfortunately the said mobile was stolen on 2nd September 2012 when the complainant who being B.Tech (CSE) student was in the SRM college “I” Block hostel at Potheri Kattankalathur in Kanchipuram district of Chennai state. The theft of mobile was complained to hostel authorities as well as to the police Maraimalainagar on 16-09-2012. The police registered the case and issued FIR No.411 of 2012 and issued ‘lost
Certificate’ after thorough search conducted. Thereafter the complainant has claimed insurance claim with the opposite party but they rejected the claim on account of the “lost cell phone at hostel ‘I’ Block”.
In order to prove the case the complainant filed his own evidence affidavit as PW1 and relied upon Exhibits.A1 to A12 documents.
Ex.A1 is insurance claim letter Ex.A2 is the insurance policy steps issued by opposite party. Ex.A3 is copy of insurance claim Form. Ex.A4 is the complaint to Sub-inspector of police Maraimalainagar. Ex.A5 is the copy of FIR No.411 of 2012 issued on 16-09-2012. Ex.A6 dated 16-09-2012 is the ‘lost certificate’ issued by Sub-inspector of police D-6 Maraimalainagar police station. Ex.A7 dated 21-07-2012 is the cell phone purchased bill No.28550168956. Ex.A8 dated 02-09-2012 is the cell phone theft e-mail complaint to SRM hostel authority. Ex.A9 dated 13-09-2012 is the e-mail complaint to S.P. Kanchipuram. Ex.A10 dated 28-01-2013 is the insurance claim rejection letter issued by opposite party. Ex.A11 is the authorization letter. Ex.A12 is the complainant ID issued by SRM University.
We have gone through the case facts and perused the exhibits. Ex.A7 is showing that the complainant has purchased the Samsung Galaxy Y Model S5360 with No.352384051494344 for Rs.7,142-86 ps at Big ‘C’ showroom in Nizamabad. It is also showing that there is National theft insurance coverage for the said cell phone. Ex.A6 is the ‘Lost Certificate’ issued by Sub-inspector of police D-6 Maraimalainagar station stating that the cell phone was not found inspite of thorough search conducted. Ex.A3 is showing that the complainant claimed the cell phone insurance claim. Ex.A10 is showing that the cell phone claim of complainant was rejected on account of “Lost his cell phone at hostel ‘I’ Block. Ex.A2 is showing the insurance claim steps wherein there is no such condition that the insurance coverage will not be applicable in the hostel. The bill in Ex.A7 is clearly mentioned that the coverage of insurance is a National theft insurance coverage under which the premium Rs.100/- paid. Further the Ex.A2 is showing that ‘Non traceable certificate’ from the police authorities is required only the value of mobile phone exceeding Rs.20,000/-. In the instant case the cost of cell phone is only Rs.7,142-86 ps. as per Ex.A7 purchased bill. Hence Non-traceable certificate from the police authorities is not required in this case. However the complainant has produced the said certificate in Ex.A6.
There is no rebutting evidence to the evidence of complainant on record. The ground for rejection of the insurance claim in Ex.A10 is not reflecting from the steps mentioned in the Ex.A2 document. The opposite party has failed to contest the case and remained set-exparte throughout the proceedings inspite received notice from this Forum.
Therefore we are of the considered view that the rejection of cell phone insurance claim in Ex.A10 is not correct and proper and there is deficiency service for which the opposite party is liable to pay the cost of cell phone with interest and cost of the proceedings.
7. IN THE RESULT, the complaint is allowed in part as under:-
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.7,142-86 ps with 9% interest from the date of rejection of claim i.e. 28-01-2013 till realisation to the complainant towards the cost of Samsung Galaxy Y Model No.S5360 mobile with IMEI No.35238401494344 under Ex.A7.
- The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.500/- to the complainant towards cost of the complaint.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Member in Open Forum on this the 14th day of November 2014.
