BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 687 of 2019
Date of Institution: 28.11.2019
Date of Decision : 12.04.2022
Amit Kumar son of Sh. Hari Chand, resident of House No. 199, DC Colony Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune through its Managing Director.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Block No.4, 07 Floor, DLF Towers, 15, Shivaj Marg, New Delhi through its authorized person.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa through its Incharge.
4. Ridhi Sidhi Mobiles, opposite Arya Primary School, Sadar Bazar Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa through its Prop.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
Before: SH.PADAM SINGH THAKUR ……………PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA……………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Madan Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 to 3.
Sh. Satpal Singh, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) with the averments that on 5.8.2017 complainant purchased a new mobile handset Model GIONEE A 1 Black from op no.4 vide bill No. 15960 dated 5.8.2017 and op no.4 had charged a sum of Rs.20,000/- from complainant. The op no.4 also got insured the said handset through ops 1 to 3 vide insurance policy no. OG-18-1155-9931-00006374 for the period 5.8.2017 to 4.8.2018 against the premium amount of Rs.1847/- for any kind of damage/ loss to the mobile set. It is further averred that on 25.06.2018, complainant was walking outside his house in the street and in the meanwhile a bike rider hit the complainant and mobile of complainant fell down and was damaged/ broken. The complainant approached to op no.4 alongwith copy of insurance of mobile set and showed him damage in the display of mobile set and other parts of mobile set but op no.4 asked him to approach op no.3 and they would redress his complaint. Thereafter, complainant approached to op no.3 but they stated that he has to firstly intimate to the customer care or inform online and to get intimation number. Accordingly, complainant sent email to the grievance redressal unit of ops no.1 and 2 upon which they provided customer care number 02228717171 to the complainant and on call on the said number, no one picked his call. On 19.7.2018, they provided intimation number to the complainant and thereafter complainant again approached op no.3 but the ops started lingering on the matter with one pretext or the other for verification. The complainant completed all the formalities required by the ops but the ops/ insurer after a long period wrongly and to avoid their liability repudiated the claim of complainant and issued a repudiation letter to him by mentioning therein that there is delay in registering the claim with the ops. That due to negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of ops, the complainant has suffered mental harassment and has undergone financial loss. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops. Ops no.1 to 3 appeared and filed joint written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of insurance company, suppression of material facts, no consumer dispute, complaint is false and frivolous, violation of terms and conditions of policy by complainant, estoppal, no cause of action and no locus standi. It is also submitted that mobile of complainant is insured with answering ops under all risk policy. The complainant stated that the mobile phone got damaged as the same fell down while he was walking as a motor cycle hit him from back on 25.6.2018. The incident was reported to answering ops on 19.7.2018 that is just 14 days prior to the expiry of the policy. The story narrated by complainant seems to be concocted in order to just lure benefits from answering ops. It is also submitted that as intimation was not within time as per policy conditions and there was no any police information, no proper evidence has been provided by the complainant, so the ops repudiated the claim vide letter dated 7.9.2018.
3. On merits also, it is submitted on behalf of ops that claim was intimated too late i.e. after 26 days of loss. The ops repudiated the claim vide letter dated 7.9.2018 stating that “said incident narrated by you is falling out of the scope of the policy and intimation given to insurance company is delayed, hence the claim is repudiated”. It is further submitted that incident occurred on 25.6.2019 within jurisdiction of P.S. HUDA Chowki, Sirsa and complainant has not lodged any FIR/ DDR regarding accident. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. OP no.4 also filed written statement wherein it is submitted that complainant got insured the said hand set through ops no.1 to 3 vide insurance policy. The complainant approached to answering op regarding the damage in the hand set but the grievance of complainant does not relate to the answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of cash/ credit memo Ex.C1, copy of policy schedule Ex.C2, copy of email 26.06.2018 Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 31.3.2019 Ex.C4.
6. On the other hand, ops no.1 to 3 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurav Khullar, Assistant Manager as Ex.R1/A, copy of policy Ex.RA, copy of repudiation letter dated 7.9.2018 Ex.RB.
7. Op no.4 did not lead any evidence and closed the same.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
9. Learned counsel for complainant contended that insurance company ops no.1 to 3 have repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that there was delay of 26 days in intimating to them which is wrong and illegal. The mobile in question was damaged on 25.6.2018 and complainant lodged complaint on the customer care number 02228717171 of ops no.1 & 2 on the same day and on 19.7.2018 the customer care of ops no.1 and 3 provided intimation number to the complainant and again complainant approached to op no.3 but ops no. 1 to 3 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other for verification and finally repudiated claim of complainant without any rhyme and reason and as such he prayed for payment of claim amount of Rs.20,000/- i.e. insured value of mobile in question and he has further claimed amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment, Rs.11,000/- as counsel fee and Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops no.1 to 3 insurance company has reiterated the same version of their written statement that there was delay in lodging claim to the ops no.1 to 3 and company has rightly repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground of delay in lodging the report to the insurance company whereas complainant was required to inform he company on the same day of loss and contended that complaint may kindly be dismissed.
11. Learned counsel for op no.4 contended that op no.4 has only sold mobile to the complainant and there was no manufacturing defect and other defect and it was accidentally damaged. After insurance of mobile in question, the matter is between complainant and insurance company and op no.4 is not liable for any claim of complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint against op no.4.
12. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties.
13. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. He has also placed on file bill of the mobile in question Ex.C1, the perusal of which reveals that on 5.8.2017 complainant had purchased the mobile in question from op no.4 for an amount of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant has also placed on file copy of policy schedule Ex.C2, the perusal of which reveals that complainant got insured his above said mobile with ops no.1 to 3 for insured value of Rs.20,000/- and premium amount of Rs.1847/- including GST amount of Rs.282/- has been charged for insurance of mobile phone by insurance company. The complainant has also placed on record email of ops no.1 &2 dated 26.6.2018 as Ex.C3 vide which complainant was provided customer care number 02228717171 to resolve the issue with ops no.1 to 3. Ex.C4 is the rejection letter of claim on the reason that there was delay of 26 days in registering the claim and insufficient to provide any evidence for the same.
14. The ops no. 1 to 3 have also tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurav Khullar, Assistant Manager in which he again reiterated version of their written statement that claim was lodged after 26 days as the date of loss was 25.6.2019 (actually 25.6.2018) and claim was repudiated on 7.9.2018 and there is no deficiency of service on the part of ops no.1 to 3.
15. Though as per version of ops no.1 to 3 there was delay of 26 days in informing to the insurance company about damage to the mobile but however, the record reveals that complainant has immediately informed the insurance company on their customer care number on the same day of loss and insurance company through its email dated 26.6.2018 Ex.C3 gave its customer care number to the complainant. So from the record placed on file, it is evident that insurance company has filed affidavit against the record that there was delay and as such genuine claim of complainant has been wrongly rejected by the insurance company. Further more, ops no.1 to 3 have also failed to prove on record that claim of complainant is out of the scope of the policy or complainant has violated any terms and conditions of insurance policy. From the record available on file, complainant has established that he has got insured his mobile phone for insured value of Rs.20,000/- from ops no.1 to 3 and as mobile in question was damaged during the period of policy, so ops no.1 to 3 are liable to indemnify the claim of complainant. However, as op no.4 only sold the mobile in question to the complainant, no liability of any kind of op no.4 is made out.
16. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against opposite parties no.1 to 3 and they are directed to make payment of Rs.20,000/- being insured value of mobile in question to the complainant. We also direct ops no.1 to 3 to further pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. However, complaint qua op no.4 is dismissed. The complainant is directed to deposit the handset in question with local office of ops no.1 to 2 i.e. with op no.3 within a period of 30 days. The ops no.1 to 3 are liable to comply this order within further period of 30 days, failing which above said total amount of Rs.25,000/- will carry interest @7% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President
Dt. 12.04.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
