CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Presidient(I/C)

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

                                            

   CC No 269/12

                                    Wednesday the 31^st day of October,2012

 

Petitioner                                              : Girish A.K

                                                               Ampazhathunkal

                                                               Chingavanam PO,

                                                                Kottayam.

 

                                                            Vs.

 

Opposite party                                     : Alegion Insurance,

                                                               Broking Ltd., No.7c, Perumal Koil Street,

                                                               Nerkundram,

                                                               Chennai 600 107.

                                                               2) Univercell Telecommunications

                                                                    India Private Ltd,

                                                                    CSI Commercial Complex,

                                                                    B.No.413 A, Baker Junction, 686 001.

 

 

 

            The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows:-

            The complainant purchased a mobile phone from the second opposite party on 9/4/12. The complainant stated that the said mobile phone had insurance coverage which was offered by the opposite parties at the time of purchase itself. On 2/512 the complainant’s handset was stolen while he was travelling from Thrissur to Kottayam. The complainant gave written complaint to the police Chingavanam.   For getting insurance claim the complainant submitted all the documents to the opposite parties but nothing has been done by them till date. The complainant alleged that the act of opposite parties is a clear case of deficiency in service and the said acts caused monetary loss and mental agony to him. Hence he filed this complaint claiming insurance amount, litigation cost of Rs.1000/- and other expenses Rs.200/-.

            Notice was served to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. But they were called absent and were set exparte.

Points for considerations are:

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

ii)                   Relieves and costs?

Evidence consists of deposition of the complainant and documents Ext.A1 to A3.

            The complainant deposed that he purchased a Nokia X1-01 mobile having insurance coverage from the second opposite party. Evidencing the said purchase he produced the copy of tax invoice dated 9/4/12 for Rs.1905/- and it is marked as Ext.A3. On perusing Ext.A3, it is seen written in the “particular column” below ‘Nokia X1-01 grey’ that inclusive of mobile theft insurance. So it is clear that the said mobile phone purchased from the opposite parties had theft insurance coverage. The complainant further deposed that the mobile phone was stolen while his transit from Thrissur to Kottayam and that the said theft was informed to the Chingavanam police station. Evidencing the said deposition he produced a copy of complaint given to Chingavanam police station and it is marked as Ext.A1. The receipt issued by the chingavanam police station is also produced and it is marked as Ext.A2. It was next deposed by the complainant that he submitted all the documents necessary for sanctioning the insurance claim to the opposite parties. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties had neither repudiated nor informed anything about the claim till now. It was again deposed by the complainant that the said act of the opposite party is a clear case of deficiency in service and it has caused mental agony and monetary loss to him. As the opposite parties chose not to contest all the allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties remain unchallenged.     

            Regulation 8 of IRDA regulations 2001 states that insurance company shall settle the claim as soon as possible but in no case latter than 45 days of the receipt of all documents and the information asked for. In case of delay 10% interest per annum also provides in the regulation. In this case as per the deposition of the complainant he had submitted all the documents demanded by the opposite parties in time but they have not settled the claim till now. In our view the said act of the opposite parties is a clear case of deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant. Point no.1 is found accordingly.

             In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is allowed. The complaint is ordered as follows.

            The opposite parties will settle the claim within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which the opposite parties will be liable to pay the purchase price of Rs.1905 with 10% interest from the date of order till realisation to the complainant. The opposite parties are also ordered to pay litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of October, 2012.

 

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Presidient(I/C)            Sd/-                                        

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

                                                                       

Ext.A1-copy of complaint given to chingavanam police dtd 3/5/12.

Ext.A2-receipt isued by chingavanam police dtd 3/5/12

Ext.A3-Copy of tax invoice dtd 9/4/12 for Rs 1905

Ext.A3(a) payment/service instance receipt issued by BSNL

 

By Order,