DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/315/2016
No. DF/ Central/ Date
Sh. Dev Rishi,
S/O Sh. Gopal,
B-8/238, Sector-3, Rohini,
Delhi-110085. …..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
- AppsDaily Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director/s
- Mr. Arun Menon,
Director, AppsDaily Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
D-3137, Oberoi Garden Estates,
Chandivali (East), Mumbai-400042
- Vaishno Electronic Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director Mr. Manish Kansal
Registered Office at Shop No. 131,
MCD Market, (Gaffar Market),
Karol Bagh, Delhi-110055 …..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Mr. R.S. Nagar, Member
ORDER
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended alleging therein that on 04.03.2016 the complainant purchased Apple iPhone 5S, 16 GB from OP3 for Rs. 21,000/- along with insurance policy bearing no. 6904213 for Rs. 2,499/- from OP1 and OP2 who were available at the shop of OP3. It is further alleged that on 07.06.2016 at about 01:15 P.M. when complainant was going towards Naharpur the above said mobile phone was stolen/snatched by two persons who were riding on a bike whom the complainant neither could see nor note down the registration number of the bike as the same was hidden by a bag. Complainant made a complaint in the Police Station in writing, blocked the SIM card and wrote e-mail to OP1 intimating about the said incident. PDF copy of the FIR was also sent to OP1 through e-mail along with copy of ID as well as photo of mobile phone. The representatives of OP1 and OP2 inquired about the incident from the complainant telephonically and asked him to submit i-card proof, invoice and FIR for processing of claim to the connect centre i.e. the legal office of OPs. OPs sent form 2A through e-mail which was to be filled in by the complainant and had to be attested by the officer of the Police Station. The complainant submitted all the papers at the connect centre of OP1 and OP2 on 15.06.2016. On 20.06.2012 OP1 and OP2 repudiated the claim of complainant stating ‘if any of the documents submitted at the time of claim are found to be tampered’ but OPs have not mentioned which documents submitted by the complainant was tampered. It is further stated that various e-mails were sent to OP1 but no reply was received from OP1 and OP2. It is further stated that Form 2A had been filled in by the complainant in his own handwriting and concerned police officer has attested the same however complainant had done some correction in the form while filling up the form and has put his signatures near the correction and complainant has not changed/modified any information already provided by OPs in Form 2A and thus there was no tampering as documents cannot be tampered by the person who created it. Complainant prayed that OP1 and OP2 be directed to pay an amount of Rs.21,000/- to the complainant against claim bearing number 6904215 along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 21.05.2016 till realization, pay Rs. 4,25,000/- as compensation for causing mental harassment, agony and torture along with cost of litigation.
Notice was sent to OPs. On perusal of the order sheet dated 18.10.2016 it is revealed that AR of OP1 appeared when copy of complaint was supplied to him. On 22.11.2016 AR of OP1 appeared and sought further time to file reply but thereafter neither reply was filed on behalf of OP1 not anybody appeared. OP2 was served with the notice but chose not to appear. Hence, both the OPs were proceeded ex-parte.
Affidavit of evidence has been filed by the complainant along with correspondence which took place between the complainant and OP1 and OP2 through e-mail as well as copy of the FIR and Form 2A submitted by the complainant to OP1 and OP2.
We have heard the complainant in person. From the e-mails placed on record, it is crystal clear that OP1 and OP2 are well aware of the fact of theft of the mobile phone of complainant as in response to the e-mail of complainant OPs have asked him to furnish the documents for processing the claim of complainant. As complainant has taken the insurance policy from OP1 and OP2 at the time of purchasing the mobile phone from OP3 and this insurance policy is against the handsets up to Rs.30,000/-against physical damage, liquid damage, theft, data loss and viruses and the complainant in his FIR has reported the fact of theft regarding his mobile, we do not find the ground of repudiation taken by OP in its e-mail stating that the claim is repudiated for submitting the documents at the time of claim have been found tampered is justified when it is not specifically mentioned as to which documents OP1 and OP2 are saying have been found tampered. The terms and conditions of the policy have also not been supplied by the OPs to the complainant. As the OP had chosen not to appear and contest the claim of the complainant and in the absence of the terms and conditions of the policy supplied, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant. From the correspondence of the e-mail between complainant and OP1 and OP2, it is established that OP1 and OP2 had issued the insurance policy in favour of complainant for the mobile in question.
In view of the discussion above as nothing has come on record in rebuttal from OP1 and OP2, we direct OP1 and OP2 to pay jointly and severally Rs.21,000/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. The above said amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which 10% interest per annum shall be payable from the date of order till the date of payment. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on Day of 2019.
