Haryana

Ambala

CC/109/2017

Gursimranpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

H.S.Maan

17 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 109 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 17.04.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 17.04.2018

 

 

Gursimranpreet Singh son of Shri Jagjit Singh, resident of House No.5, Shivalik Colony, Nr: Singhanwala, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       Apple India Pvt Ltd through its Authorised Signatory, No.24, 19^th floor, Concorde Tower C, UBCity, Vittal Mallya Road, Banglore-560001

2.       Imperia Saya Network through its Authorised Signatory, Shop No.5365/66A, Nicolson Road, Near HDFC Bank, Ambala Cantt.

3.       Syska Insurance Company through its Authorised Signatory, Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd, 29, Akshay Complex, off: Dhole Patil Road, Near Hotel Madhuban, Pune-411001.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender  Kumar, Member.            

                   Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

 

 

Present:       Sh. H.S.Mann, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for the OP No.1.

OP No. 2 ex parte v.o.d. 01.06.2017.

Sh. Sandeep Kashyap, counsel for OP No.3.

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a Apple Mobile Phone (IPhone 7, PLUS, 32GB, BLK, 359160070257810, SF2LSGVWNHG04, 1P3C72HN/A, 190198154187) SGS 2999 H-B210 from the OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.69,000/- on 04.11.2016. On the allurement of the OP No.2, the complainant became ready to get his mobile phone insured from the OP No.3. and the mobile phone of the complainant insured and issued invoice dated 04.11.2016 after obtaining  Rs. 2999/- from the complainant.  During the insurance period, on 03.01.2017 the mobile phone of the deponent became totally damage and the deponent and  he immediately contacted the OP No.2 alongwith damaged mobile. The Ops No. 2 & 3 assured that the insurance claim of the complainant will be settled within a week but  on 04.01.2017 the complainant received a shock to know when the OP No.3 demanded the ID proof of “Gursimranpreet Kaur” where as the complainant’s name is “Gursimranpreet Singh” and in whose name the mobile phone was purchased from the OP No.2 and insured with the OP No.3, all the documentary formalities  were  fulfilled by the officials  of the OP No.3 from the invoice issued by the OP No.2  and from the Aadhar-card of the complainant. He further stated that the above circumstances, it is clear that the Ops are trying  to play some foul game with the complainant with an object to avoid their liability of making claim to the complainant. A legal notice served to the Ops on 01.02.2017. The complainant has suffering great hardship, mental pain and agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notice issued to Op No.2 but none has turned up on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.06.2017. Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that as the entire claim is made against the OP Nos. 2 & 3. The OP No.1 in this matter has not provided any sort of insurance and the same has been provided by the other Ops which has been explicitly explained by the complainant in the complaint. He has not presented  any service report to prove that OP No.1 has denied  any sort of service or assistance to him. He accepted that his iPhone was damaged in an accident. Additionally the complainant failed to provide any evidence to prove that OP No.1 or their representative denies any sort of services to him.

Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that the policy documents  clearly show that the contract regarding insurance  under Syska Gadget  Secure Scheme  is facilitated by M/s Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd. And insurance cover provided by the National Insurance Company Ltd. The claim was intimated by the Gursimranpreet and same is forwarded by the M/s Leehan Retails Pvt Ltd to National Insurance Company. The complainant was not a registered owner of the product Syska Gadget Scheme. The product was purchased by Gursimaranpreet Kaur and complaint  has been filed by Gursimaranpreet Singh. The claim of the complainant was rejected by insurance company as per terms of insurance. The Op No.3 is not liable for any kind of deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3.               To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X with documents as annexure C-1 to C-7 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A with documents as Annexure R-1 to R-3 and close his evidence. Counsel for OP No.3 tendered as Annexure R-4 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and carefully gone through the case file. It is not disputed that the complainant has purchased the mobile in question from OP No.2 as per Annexure C-3 and it is also proved on the file that the complainant has also paid amount Rs. 2,999/- the insurance amount to OP No.3 through OP No.2  as per Annexure C-2. The complainant has alleged that during the insured period all of sudden mobile in question become totally damaged and contacted to OP No.2 alongwith the damage phone and OP No.3 has taken the damage phone from the complainant and he has furnished  all formalities for settling the claim. The OP No.3 has rejected the claim only on the ground that the complainant is not owner and the product was purchased by Gursimranpreet Kaur not by the complainant. Therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the insured amount and OP No.3 has further stated that there is no contract regarding the insurance between the complainant and Op No.3 . The claim has been rightly rejected by the OP No.3.

5.                Perusal of the file reveals that the purchase bill of the mobile  is in the name of the complainant i.e. Gursimranpreet Singh as per Annexure C-3 and is not in the name of the Gursimranpreet Kaur and insurance  amount has been also paid by the Gursimranpreet Singh  which is proved as per Annexure C-2.

6.                In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the insurance company/Op No.3 has wrongly rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that complainant is not owner of the product.  We hold that insurance company is deficient in service and hence the OP No.3 is liable  to pay the insured amount to the complainant because mobile in  question become total damaged (accidental Physical damage).The complaint against the OP Nos. 1 &2 is dismissed because the OP No.1 is a manufacturer of the product in question and OP No.2 is a dealer, therefore, they  have no role to play in the subject matter because after receiving the insurance premium by OP No.3, the duty qua indemnifying the liability in case of any damage/loss to the product in question as the complainant and the insurance company had entered into a insurance contract. The plea of the OP No.3 that the insurance facilitated by M/s Leehan Retail Pvt Ltd. is not tenable because the insurance contract was executed with the OP No.3 and the complainant has not dealt with alleged M/s Leehan Retail Pvt Ltd. It is clear that OP No.3 and M/s Leehan Retail Pvt Ltd works together, therefore, the complainant is not bound to array said M/s Leehan Retail Pvt Ltd as party to the present case. The OP No.3 has not placed on file any documents to show that National Insurance Company had issued the insurance policy in the name of the  complainant rather it shows that the OP No.3 in order to avoid the genuine claim of the complainant has taken meaningless or flimsy  ground to reject the claim. The insurance company i.e. OP No.3 is only liable to indemnify the loss occurred to the product in question during policy period. Accordingly, the present compliant is allowed against OP No. 3 and it is directed to comply with the following directions direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To pay the insured amount as per Invoice (Annexure C-3) amounting Rs. 69,000/- to the complainant within stipulated period failing which they will pay the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.

(ii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- on account of cost of proceedings as assessed above.

 

                   It is made clear that the product in question is lying with OP No.2 through whom the insurance policy was purchased by the complainant, therefore, the insurance company is at liberty to collect the product in question from the OP No.2. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 17.04.2018

                    

 

 

 

 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)       (ANAMIKA  GUPTA)          (D.N. ARORA)

Member                                 Member                                      President