Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1110/2019

Sushil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Airtel Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1110/2019
Date of Institution	:	10.12.2019
Date of Decision	:	01/12/2022

 

Sushil Kumar S/o Sh. Sant Ram R/o G-114 Govind Vihar, Baltana, Zirakpur-140604 Distt. Mohali (Punjab).

 

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

1. Airtel Limited Plot No.21, Second floor, Rajiv Gandhi I.T. Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh through its Nodal Officer.
2. Airtel Relationship Centre, SCO No. 279, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh through its Manager.
3. M/s Airtel Secure, One Assist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. at P.O. Box No. 7417, JB Nagar post office, JB Nagar, Andheri (E) Mumbai.

… Opposite Party (ies)

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	complaint against OPs No.1&2 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 3.10.2022. Sh. S.R. Bansal, counsel for OP No.3.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint  was originally filed by 
   Sh. Sushil Kumar complainant against Opposite parties NO.1&2  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs No.1&2)  and later on, on the application of the complainant vide order dated 15.7.2022  Opposite Party No.3 (hereinafter referred to as the OP No.3)  was ordered to be impleaded as party being insurer of the subject handset. The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1.  It is alleged in the complaint that  OPs No.1&2 had introduced one scheme Airtel Secure and under the said scheme only Airtel subscribers complying with the following criteria were made eligible for the offer.:-

1.  The person must have airtel postpaid connection (retail/CIP only; not applicable for Datacard& Child Connection)
2. The device should not be more than one year old from the date of purchase at the time of subscription.
3. Subscriber age to be over 18 years at the time of enrollment.
4. Device/phone to be smartphone (Android and iOS).

The aforesaid criteria has already found reference in the terms and conditions Annexure C-1. After fulfilling all the aforesaid conditions, the complainant being found himself suitable under the said scheme since he had purchased the subject handset on 2.5.2016 having SIM No.9888010911 of post paid Airtel and also the complainant was above 18 years old and was having smart phone (OPPO F1 Plus)  had subscribed under the said scheme, which was valid w.e.f. 10.5.2017 to 9.5.2018 covering accidental and liquid damages  for the insured amount of Rs.18,000/-. The subscription fee was to be paid monthly and was to be charged in the bill.  In the month November 2018, the said handset of the complainant was damaged as a result of which, the complainant claimed insurance amount by filing the  claim.  However, to the utter surprise, the said claim of the claimant was rejected by the OPs on 15.11.2018 on the ground that the device of the complainant was more than 2 years old at the time of membership activation. After rejection of the claim the complainant approached the OP through various emails  with the request to clear the claim but with no result.  As in the year 2007, the complainant changed  his number 9872212580 from Airtel postpaid to Airtel prepaid against which the OPs were required to refund the security amount, which has not been refunded, the complainant is also entitled for the said security amount. The OPs were requested several times to admit the claim of the complainant but with no response, hence, the present complaint.     

2. Complaint is supported with the affidavit of the complainant.
3. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their separate written replies. In their written reply OPs NO.1&2 denied the allegations made by the complainant against them and prayer has been made that the complaint be dismissed  against  the answering OPs.  However, during the pendency of the complaint the matter was settled by the complainant and OPs No.1&2 had paid an amount of Rs.2500/- to the complainant including security amount and the complainant withdrew his complaint against them, as a result of which no cause of action survives against OPs No.1&2.
4. In its written reply, OP No.3 took preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction and suppression of facts on record. Admitted that subject handset was covered upto maximum two years  and refurbish mobile  was not covered under  the plan.  As the subject handset was found to be more than two years old, thus, the claim, of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the answering OP.   The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested and prayed for its dismissal.
5. Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP No.3.

 

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3 and also gone through the file carefully,
4. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complaint against OPs No.1&2 has already been dismissed as withdrawn on account of refund of security amount etc. by the OPs No.1&2  to the complainant, the case is reduced to  a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the repudiation  of the claim raised by the complainant by OP No.3 is justified or not and for that purpose the terms and conditions Annexure C-1 are required to be scanned carefully.
5. The terms and conditions of the Airtel Secure offer Annexure C-1 clearly indicates that for the subscriber at the time of subscription it was one of the mandatory condition that the device i.e. the subject handset  in the present complaint should not be more than one years old from the date of purchase at the time of subscription. In the case in hand as it is the case of the complainant that he had purchased  the subject handset on 2.5.2016 and he had applied for validity  of the subscription w.e.f. 10.5.2017 to 3.12.2018, it is clear that the subject handset of the complainant was more than one year old at the time of subscription. The complainant has contended at the time of arguments that in fact earlier the said scheme was valid for handset upto two years old and later on the said condition was changed by the OPs in order to cause damage to the complainant and even if it is provided under Annexure C-1 that mobile should not be more than one year old  from the date of its purchase at the time of subscription, the said clause is void. However, there is no force in the contention of the complainant as Annexure C-1 is the document having been relied by the complainant specifically provide that  the device should not be more than one year old  at the time of subscription from the date of purchase and at the same time it is clear from the invoice of the subject handset  Annexure C-2  that the same was purchased on 2.5.2016 and the complainant became subscriber of the scheme in question on  10.5.2017 i.e. after the expiry of one year. Not only this even if the contention of the complainant that originally two years old device was covered under the scheme in question, even then the complainant is not entitled for the claim since the complainant has comes with the plea that his subject handset was damaged in the month of November 2018, which too comes beyond the period of two years from the date of purchase of the subject handset as the same was purchased by the complainant on 2.5.2016. Thus in both ways the complainant has failed to prove his case if there is any deficiency on the part of OP No.3 who has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter  Annexure C-3.
6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Sd/-

Announced 1/12 /2022 mp			[Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member