Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/609/2016

Amrit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Chaudhary Adv. & Anirudh Gupta Adv.

17 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	609 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	17.8.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	17.2.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Amrit Singh s/o Chanan Singh r/o house No.65, Village Kajheri, Sector 52, Chandigarh..  

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1.  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. having its Regd. Office GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yarwada Pune 411006 through its Managing Director.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. having its authorized dealer building No.436/2 near Garg Clinic, Maloya, Sector 39-D, Chandigarh 160025 through its proprietor.
3. AWP service (India) Pvt. Ltd. DLF Square Building Gurgaon Head Office through its Managing Director.

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. Amit Chaudhary and Anirudh Gupta,                 Advocates.

 

For OP No.1             :     Sh. P.H.S. Pannu, Adv. proxy for Sh.                              Sachin Ohri, Adv.

 

For OP No.2             :     None

 

For OP No.3             :     Exparte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

     As per the case, the complainant purchased I phone 5s Gold colour 16GB  on 11.1.2015 for a sum of Rs.43,500/-  and the said I phone was insured on the same date of purchasing by Bajaj Alliance under extended warranty policy scheduled for the period from 11.1.2016 to 10.1.2017. Unfortunately the  handset in question suffered problem of charging and speaker on 7.7.2016. The complainant approached Apple Care Centre in Sector 34 and on the advice of Apple Care the complainant on 8.7.2016 called the Bajaj Allianz Customer Care and told them about the problem. The representative of Bajaj Allianz collected the phone from the complainant on 12.7.2016. It is alleged that despite assurance given by the OPs NO.1&2 regarding the replacement of the said handset in question they neither replaced the same nor returned the handset.  It is further alleged that the complainant was informed by OP No.2 on 26.2.2016 that his claim has been closed on the basis total loss and was asked to visit office of OPs to collect the amount of Rs.18900/-. The complainant protested the same. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed he served a legal notice dated 19.7.2016 upon the OPs but to no avail. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

2. Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 23.09.2016.
3.      However, OP No.1 challenged the exparte order aforesaid before the Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 25.10.2016 set aside the exparte order dated 23.9.2016 passed by this Forum and afforded an opportunity to OP No.1 to file reply and evidence within 10 days from the date of passing the order.
4.      Opposite Party No.1 filed reply within the stipulated period wherein it stated that its liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions and coverage under the policy as reflected in para 4 of the written statement. It is pleaded that liability if any, arise on account of damage to the item it will be as per repair cost or replacement cost and for entire policy period it will not be more than sum insured in the policy.  It is further pleaded that the authorized dealer namely Paramatrix Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. assessed the loss of the handset in question to the tune of Rs.21,000/- having problem of charging and speaker and as per exclusion clause 10%  of the claim amount will be deducted on raising of each and every claim subject to minimum of Rs.500/-. Thus after deduction of 10% from Rs.21,000/- as assessed by the authorized dealer amount comes to Rs.18900/-. It is claimed that the answering OP offered the amount to the complainant but he refused to accept the same. Claimed further that OP No.1 is still ready to pay the same subject to production of few necessary documents to process the claim. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
5.      OP NO.2 in its reply stated that it has no role to play in the dispute in hand. It is only a mediator between the complainant and OP No.1 and if there is any claim the same is to be paid by OP No.1 only. Denying all other allegations levelled in the complaint it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
6.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party No.1&2 made in their reply.
7.     Contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
8.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant, ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and have also perused the record carefully.
9.     It is admitted case of the complainant that he purchased I phone 5s Gold colour 16GB  on 11.1.2015 for Rs.43,500/-  and the said I phone was insured on the same date of purchasing by Bajaj Alliance under extended warranty policy schedule for the period from 11.1.2016 to 10.1.2017. It is also not disputed that the  said handset in question encountered with the problem of charging and speaker on 7.7.2016. On the advice of Apple Care the complainant on 8.7.2016 called the Bajaj Allianz Customer Care whereby the representative of Bajaj Allianz collected the phone from the complainant on 12.7.2016.

 

10.     It is the claim of the complainant that despite assurance given by the OPs NO.1&2 regarding the replacement of the said handset in question they have not replaced the same nor returned the handset.  It is further not disputed that the claim of the complainant has been closed on the basis of total loss and was asked to visit office of OPs to collect the amount of Rs.18900/-. The complainant agitated the same.

 

11.     OP Nos.1 with whom the handset in question was insured took the stand that it assessed  the amount of Rs.18900/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy and are still ready to pay the assessed amount and thus are not liable for deficiency in service  

 

12.     OP NO.2 submitted that it is only a mediator between the complainant and OP No.1 and if there is any claim the same is to be paid by OP No.1. we are not convinced with the said argument of OP No.2 as it is equally liable with OP No.1 being part  and parcel of the insurance company i.e. OP No.1.

 

13.      We are of the concerted view that the assessment of Rs.18900/- by the OPs NO.1&2 is arbitrary and not justified. We feel that the complainant is entitled for  the sum insured of the mobile handset in question as the same has been declared as a total loss by OP No.1 declaring in one of the email dated 21^st July, 2016 which is reproduced as under:-

“this case is close on total los for amount 18900/- please collect required documents and asset from customer.”

 

 

14.     From the above, it is beyond doubt clear that OP No.1 i.e. insurance company declared the claim of the complainant as total loss. However, the OPs arbitrarily assessed the loss on the lower side to the tune of Rs.18900/- despite declaring it as total loss as stated above. Thus, the complainant is fully entitled to the sum insured subject to the deduction as mentioned in the terms and conditions of the policy.
15.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties No.1&2 are jointly & severally directed as under:-

        

a]  To  pay the sum insured to the complainant after deducting the deducible amount as per the terms and conditions of insurance policy in question.

 

b]  To pay Rs.5000/- as consolidated amount for their deficiency in service and for thrusting this litigation.

.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1&2 within 30 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the above awarded amount at (a) from the date of claim till realization  and at (b) from the date of filing the present complaint till payment.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

17.2.2017

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER