Haryana

Kurukshetra

271/2018

Vikas Saharan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Airtel - Opp.Party(s)

Suresh Sharma

07 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                        Consumer Complaint No.271 of 2018.

                                        Date of instt.:10.12.2018. 

                                        Date of Decision: 07.11.2019.

 

Vikas Saharan s/o Shri Karam Singh, r/o village Ghararsi, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                …….Complainant.                                                   Versus

 

1. Airtel Secure, Bharti Airtel Ltd., Plot No.41 & 42, Industrial Park, Sector-2, Growth Centre, Saha, Distt. Ambala through its Authorized Signatory.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Dr. Sawhney Nursing Home, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra.

        ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.                                                   

Present:     Shri Suresh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.        

Opposite party No.1 ex-parte.

Shri R.K. Singhal, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Vikas Saharan against Airtel Secure and other, the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a iphoneX 54GB with IMEI No.353051090951472 on 03.2.2018 for a sum of Rs.86,500/- from Munjal Mobile, Aggarsain Chowk, Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra vide bill No.4184. He got insured the said mobile phone with OP and paid premium for the period from 11.10.2018 to 10.10.2019 for a sum insured of Rs.65,000/- vide Policy No.99000046182400000045 by saying that in case the mobile would be damaged through physical damage, liquid damage, theft, data loss and viruses, then the OPs would replace the same with new one within a period of ten days. That on 17.11.2018, he was driving the motorcycle and suddenly a stray animal came in front of him, due to this, he applied the brake and the mobile phone slipped from the pocket. In this regard, he lodged the claim with OPs No.1 & 2, who refused to make the claim on some flimsy grounds on 23.11.2018. He continuously approached the OPs for repairing the mobile, but they again refused to do so. This act and conduct of the OPs amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency on their parts. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 before this Forum, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 04.06.2019.

                Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus-standi; cause of action and complaint is bad for mis-joinder & non-joinder of necessary parties. It is stated that the policy was issued in favour of OneAssist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and not in the name of complainant. The complainant has failed to implead the necessary party i.e. OneAssist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. The true and material facts are that the claim was lodged by the complainant on account of damages to his mobile set, but the said claim was not admissible and the same was rejected as the damage had taken place due to own negligence of the complainant. The complainant again lodged the same claim for payment of compensation, but the same was again rejected on 25.11.2018. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.2. On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same against the OP No.2 with special costs.

4.             The complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5.           From the perusal of bill dated 03.02.2018 Ex.C-2, it is evident that the complainant had purchased the mobile in question from the OP No.1 and insured the same with the OP No.2 for the period from 11.10.2018 to 10.10.2019 for a sum insured of Rs.65,000/- vide Policy Ex.C-1. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on 17.11.2018, the said mobile phone was damaged in a roadside accident and the complainant lodged with the claim with the OPs, who refused to pay the claim. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.2 has firstly contended that the claim of the complainant was rightly rejected as the damage had taken place due to own negligence of the complainant, but this contention of the OP No.2 has no force, as the OP No.2 has failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that the damage to the mobile in question was done due to the own negligence of the complainant. The learned counsel for the OP No.2 further contended that the policy was issued in favour of OneAssist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and not in the name of complainant, to whom, the complainant has not impleaded as party in the present complaint, but this contention of the OP No.2 has also no force, as from the perusal of Insurance Policy Ex.C-1, it is evident that the said policy was duly issued by the OP No.2 in the name of the complainant i.e. Vikas Saharan regarding the mobile in question, thereof, the contentions of the OP No.2 cannot be taken as gospel truth. Whereas, on the other hand, to support his case, the complainant produced his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A alongwith insurance policy as Ex.C-1 and bill as Ex.C-2. Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the duly insured mobile in question of the complainant was damaged and the OP No.2 failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant. Hence, the OP No.2 is deficient in providing the services to the complainant. So far as, the complaint filed against OP No.1 is concerned; it may be stated here that neither any specific allegations have been levelled by the complainant against the OP No.1, nor it has been proved. Therefore, the complaint filed against OP No.1, is dismissed. Since the mobile in question was insured for a sum of Rs.65,000/-, therefore, the OP No.2 is liable to pay the said amount to the complainant.

6.             In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the complaint against the OP No.1 and allow the same against the OP No.2 and direct the OP No.2 in the following manner:-

1. To pay the insured amount of Rs.65,000/- to the complainant, subject to deposition of mobile in question with the OP No.2 by the complainant.  
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

 

                The OP No.2 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OP No.2. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:07.11.2019.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.