Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/376

Gobind Bagga - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ahuja Elect. - Opp.Party(s)

V.V.Puri Adv.

18 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 376 of 13.05.2016

Date of Decision            :   18.01.2017

 

Gobind Bagga, resident of House No.B01-163, Guru Nanak Pura, Civil Lines, Near Kailash Chowk, Ludhiana.

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.M/s Ahuja Electronics, Shop No.2, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana-141008, through its Prop./Partner/authorized signatory.

2.Apps Daily Mobile, H.Q.Connect Cetnre Apps. Daily, App.Daily Southern Pvt. Ltd., 6^th Floor, C-Wing, Oberoi Garden, Chandivali, Andheri (E), Mumbai.

 

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        In person             

For OPs                         :        Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant purchased mobile phone of make HTC Desire 828 Dual having IMEI No.3525322070862301 from OP1 vide invoice/bill bearing No.23221 dated 8.1.2016 for an amount of Rs.19,750/-. That mobile phone was got insured from OP2 by making payment of Rs.1749/- vide receipt No.23222 dated 8.1.2016 through OP1. That amount was received by OP1 on behalf of OP2. The above said mobile of the complainant stood stolen on 9.2.2016 during continuation of the policy period. DDR dated 9.2.2016 at Police Station Division No.8, Ludhiana was lodged and thereafter, intimation of loss was given to the Ops by lodging claim and submitting the requisite documents. Despite repeated requests to OP2 to pay the claim amount and despite sending of various emails, OP2 failed to pay the claim as per norms of the insurance policy. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, this complaint filed with directions to Ops to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of claim. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.1 lac and even compensation for damages of Rs.50,000/- claimed.

2.                Ops are ex-parte in this case.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and then closed the ex-parte evidence.

4.                Arguments were then heard and records gone through carefully.

5.                Ex.C4 is the invoice showing as if Rs.1749/- were paid by the complainant to OP1 for insurance of the mobile purchased through invoice Ex.C5 of date 8.1.2016. In view of acceptance of insurance amount of Rs.1749/- by OP1 on behalf of OP2, submissions advanced by the complainant certainly has force that mobile phone of worth of Rs.19,750/- purchased by him from OP1 was duly insured with OP2 on the same date.

6.                Ex.C1 is letter dated 13.2.2016 sent by the complainant to Manager of OP2 for informing that he has already submitted the claim intimation regarding loss of the mobile phone in question and same fact even borne from the email correspondence Ex.C2 of date 15.2.2016. Format of police compliant Ex.C3 also produced on record to show as if mobile phone in question was snatched from the complainant by someone on 7.2.2016. So, in view of this documentary evidence produced on record, contents of affidavit of complainant believable that insured mobile phone in question stood snatched from the complainant by unknown and that is why, he submitted intimation of loss with OP2 through email and even lodged report with Police Division No.8, Ludhiana. Stamp of Police Division No.8 of Ludhiana is there on letter/Form 2A Ex.C3. As the mobile phone in question was fully insured and as such, in view of the loss of the mobile phone during insurance period, the complainant is entitled to the full price amount of the mobile phone in question. OP1 accepted the insurance amount of Rs.1749/- for and on behalf of OP2 and it is between OP1 and OP2 as to whether the amount actually sent by OP1 to OP2 or not and as such, for avoiding unnecessary harassment of the complainant, ends of justice warrants that both OP1 and OP2 should be held liable for deficiency in service, due to non passing of the claim of insurance, despite repeated correspondence by the complainant.

7.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte in terms that Ops will refund Rs.19,750/- (the price amount of lost insured mobile of complainant) to the complainant within 30 days from today, failing which, they will be liable to pay interest @8% per annum on this amount from today onwards till payment. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.2000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- more allowed in favour of the complainant and against Ops, whose liability for such payments held as joint and several. Payment of above referred amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copies of this order by the Ops. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

8.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                              (G.K. Dhir)

                                              Member                                                  President

Announced in Open Forum                                                          Dated:18.01.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.