Date of Filing:13-05-2016
Date of Order: 18-3-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Monday, the 18th day of March, 2019
C.C.No.261 /2016
Between
Ritesh Tiwari, S/o.Ram Charan
Age : 35 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.21-4-452
Petlaburj, Hyderabad ……Complainant
And
- Bajaj Electronics,
Rep. by Manager,
5-4-17, J.N.Road,
Abids, Hyderabad -1
- The New India Assurance Company Limited
Rep. by Manager
At Bajaj Electronics,
5-4-17, J.N.Road,
Abids, Hyderabad -1
- UB Insurance Associates (APPS DAILY CLAIMS DICISION)
Bangalore, Karnataka State -11, rep by Manager
- The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Bommasandra Branch, rep. by Manager,
KIADB COMPLEX,
1ST FLOOR, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE – 562158 ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Sri Satyajeet Jajoo
Counsel for the opposite Party No.1 : M/s. Santosh Singh
opposite Party No.2 to 4 : Sri D.R.Kulkarni
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging that the opposite parties 1 to 4 by rejecting the claim caused deficiency of services and unfair trade practice and result of it a direction to them to pay a sum of Rs. 64,500/- towards cost of the handset without depreciation and award a compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards loss in business and further sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and interest on the refund amount at 18% P.a and cost of this complaint at Rs.10,000/-.
- The complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased Samsung handset from the opposite party No.1 retail shop on 17-07-2015 and it was insured with opposite party No.2 on the same day. At the time of purchase he was assured by opposite party No.1 that the handset was insured against the theft as reflecting in the invoice. As per the policy terms and conditions depreciation would be 15% from the date of purchase to 3 months , 25% from 4 to 6 months and 45% 5 to 12 months.
On 15-10-2015 he lodged a complaint with the police with regard to loss of handset on 14-10-2015 when he went to offer prayer in the old city as due to huge crowd someone had stolen the handset from his pocket. He approached opposite party No.1 and informed about the loss of handset, on that he was advised to contact opposite party No.2 &4. Accordingly he met opposite party No.4 and informed about the loss of handset. He was advised to contact opposite party No.3 at Bangalore. While he was trying to contact opposite party No.3 representative of it responded and refused to hand over the claim form. Thereupon he contacted opposite party No.4 received the claim form and submitted on 16-10-2015. He was assured by opposite party No.4 that the claim would be settled within 72 hours without any depreciation as loss of handset was within 90 days from the date of purchase.
Complainant while waiting for the claim to be settled the opposite party No.4 not responded properly and deliberately dragged the issue till today on one pretext or the other. Thereafter he contacted opposite party No.3 for immediate steps but the efforts are in vain and no action was taken by them. Because of dragging of issue by opposite party No.2 to 4 he suffered loss in the business as most of his clients w are to be contacted through mobile phone. After much persuasion and negotiation opposite party No.4 informed the complainant that claim will be sanction by applying rule of depreciation at 25%. He refused to accept the same since loss of handset was within 90 days from the date of purchase as depreciation can be 15%. The opposite party No.3&4 has failed to settle the claim as assured within 72 hours and it amounts to violation of the terms of the policy, hence got issued a legal notice to opposite party No.3 &4 on 17-03-2016 and having received it the opposite parties neither gave a reply nor settled the claim. Hence the present complaint for the above stated reliefs.
- Opposite party No.1 in its separate written version contended that no allegation has been made against it by the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on its part. The transaction between the complainant and opposite party No.1 is limited only towards purchasing the product from it being a dealer/ retailer of Samsung product. It is for the opposite party No.2 to 4 to settle the claim of the complainant and opposite party No1 has no role to play. Hence the complaint filed against opposite party No.1 is baseless and for misjoinder of parties and is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.1.
- Common written version is filed for opposite party No.2 to 4 admitting the policy issued to the hand set purchased by complainant from opposite party No.1 retail shop but denied the rest of the complainant’s allegations. The claim of the complainant that on account of theft of handset he suffered loss in the business as he used to contact the clients/customers on mobile is in correct because complainant has got another mobile with service No.9848309070 and he could have contacted with his clients through the said service number. Complainant’s claim that he lost handset on 14-10-2015 and lodged a complaint with the police on 15-10-2015, but the endorsement made by the concerned police shows the lodging of the complaint was on 15-09-2015 which is one month prior to the loss of handset and it shows the complainant is in habit of changing version as per his convenience and they have not assured to settle the claim within 72 hours of submitting it. Lodging of the complaint with the police was on 15-09-2015 and theft alleged to have taken place one month there after hence complaint is suspicious. The claim was repudiated as documents are found tampered, non disclosure of material facts, fraud or misrepresentations insured entitled to reject the claim. At no point of time the complainant was informed that claim will be sanctioned with application of 25% depreciation. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the enquiry stage the complainant has got filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the substance of the complaint and got exhibited 7 documents. Similarly for the Opposite Party evidence affidavit of its authorized signatory is got filed and substance of same is in line with the stand taken in the written version filed for it. For opposite party No.2 to 4 the evidence affidavit of one Sri K.Nageswara Rao stated to be Regional Manager of opposite party No.2 is got filed and substance of same is in line with the written version filed for it. 3 documents are exhibited for opposite party No.2 to 4. After conclusion of the evidence both the parties have filed written arguments and made oral submissions.
On a consideration of material available on the record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether the repudiation of the claim by opposite party No.2 to 4 is valid and justifiable?
- Whether the complainant could prove that he sustained loss in the business on account of not settling his claim in the given time?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claims made in the complaint?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: The only ground pleaded by the opposite party No.2 to 4 for repudiation of the claim of the complainant is the complainant version is he lodged a complaint with the police on the very next day of loss of handset when someone has stolen when he went to offer to prayer in old City. Ex.A3 is the format of police complaint filed by the complainant and it is dated 15-10-2015. It has been stated by the complainant in this Ex.A3 that he loss handset on 14-10-2015 ie., a day prior to lodging of the complaint but endorsement at the police station stated to have been made by Inspector of police as on 15-09-2015 and it shows one month prior to theft of handset of complainant lodged a report. It appears that the endorsement at the receiving was purely mistaken by the person who made it and because of that when the complainant pointed out in the police station the same person made endorsement that it was received on 15-10-2015. The insured also signed on the complaint with date as 15-10-2015. The complainant also filed Ex.A4 which is receipt for acknowledgment of a complaint and it is dated 15-10-2015. This itself falsifies the stand of the opposite party No.2 to 4 that because the complainant has lodged a complaint with the police one month prior to the alleged date of theft of handset the claim was suspicious hence rejected. It is not the stand of the opposite party that it has got appointed a investigator to examine whether the complainant filed report with police and said investigation revealed that lodging of the complaint by the complainant was on 15-09-2015. All this would go to show that opposite party No.2 to 4 basing on mistaken endorsement by the person at the police station who received the complaint from the complainant saying that said complaint is tampered one. The repudiation of the claim is not justified since documents placed on record has clinchingly proved that the complainant lodged a report with police on the very next day of loss of handset. The repudiation of the claim by opposite party No.2 to 4 basing on endorsement by police is wholly unjustified. Accordingly point is answered infavour of the complainant.
Point No.2: The complainant’s claim is that he is a business man and contacts his clients by mobile phone and because of not settling of the claim within reasonable time he could not contact his clients and thereby suffered loss. To substantiate the same he has not placed any material The mode of proof for business loss is to file the monthly returns for the period before loss of handset and for the period subsequent loss of period. That a part of opposite party No.2 to 4 in the written version have clearly mentioned that the complainant also is having another mobile with service No.9848309070 in addition to land line through which he could have communicated with the clients in the business. Despite this version of the opposite party No.2 to 4 the complainant in his evidence affidavit has not whispered about the having another mobile connection apart from land line facility. So absolutely there is no truth in the claim of the complainant that he sustained loss in the business on account of loss of handset and consequently for not settling the claim by opposite party No.2 to 4 within reasonable time. Accordingly this point is answered against the complainant.
Point No.3: The purchase of the handset by the complainant was on 17-07-2015 from the opposite party No.1 and theft it was on 14-10-2015 i.e, within 90 days from the date of purchase and applicable depreciation as per Ex.B1 policy is 15% hence the complainant is entitled for settlement of his claim by applying 15% depreciation. By not settling the claim the opposite party No.2 to 4 have caused some inconvenience if not loss in the business. The very rejection of the claim by the opposite party No.2 to 4 is not justified, hence the complainant entitled a compensation of Rs.5,000/-. In addition to it the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of this complaint. Accordingly point is answered.
Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties No.2 to 4
- To settle the complainant’s claim by applying 15% depreciation of the cost of purchase of handset and pay interest there on it @ 9% P.a from the date of complaint to the date of payment
- The opposite parties No.2 to 4 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of this complaint.
- Claim against opposite party No.1 is dismissed.
Time for compliance : 30 days from the date of service of this order.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 18th day of March , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exhibts filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 is invoice No.ABS/115/5746, dated 17-7-2015
Ex.A2 is bill of insurance policy
Ex.A3 is copy of complaint to police station Hussainalam, Hyderabad dt.15-10-2015
Ex.A4 is acknowledgment copy
Ex.A5 is legal notice dt.18-12-2015
Ex.A6 Regd.post receipts dt.18-12-2015
Ex.A7 is acknowledgment
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Ex.B1 is policy schedule
Ex.B2 is format of police complaint dt.15-10-2015
Ex.B3 is copy of repudiation of claim dt.17-02-2016
MEMBER PRESIDENT
