In this regard it was submitted that the said handset was damaged accidentally and not negligently. The opposite parties with the sole intention not to reimburse the complainant to the tune of Rs.65,000/- had repudiated the claim of the complainant without any reasonable cause and rhyme. The complainant sent legal notice dated 31.08.2019 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) reimburse claim amount of Rs.65,000/- to the complainant on account of accidentally damaged hand with interest @ 24% p.a from the date of damage of the said handset till the date of realization of the said amount jointly or severally.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay the cost of the present complaint to the complainant jointly or severally.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that there was no relationship of consumer and service provide viz-a-viz the complainant and the answering opposite parties. The complainant was not covered under the scheme as the complainant as per his own admission had purchased the handset in his name whereas the SIM covered was in the name of his wife Anju. Therefore, the complainant could not claim any benefit of the scheme, Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that it was submitted that the answering opposite party No.2 was only required to facilitate the registering and processing of the claim of the complainant with the insurance company and it was the insurance company which was to settle the insurance claim of the complainant. In the present case, the answering party No.2 provided the service to the complainant by processing the claim of the complainant to insurance company. It was DHFL General Insurance Company Limited (now known as Navi General Insurance Company Limited), an insurance company with which the i-phone in question was insured was to settle the claim of the complainant. It was submitted that the answering opposite party No.2 disputes and denies its liability to pay any claim to the complainant. The answering opposite party No.2 was only required to facilitate the registering and processing of the claim of the complainant which was duly complied by answering opposite party No.2. The answering opposite party No.2 processed the claim of the complainant and same was rejected due to lack of duty of care as per the terms & conditions of the policy. Thus, the complainant was not entitled for any claim/relief as claimed. Further the damage had occurred without any external cause and therefore such damage was not covered under the definition of Accidental Damage/Liquid Damage. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Bharti Aitrel Limited & Anr. with the prayer to: a) reimburse claim amount of Rs.65,000/- to the complainant on account of accidentally damaged hand with interest @ 24% p.a from the date of damage of the said handset till the date of realization of the said amount jointly or severally. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay the cost of the present complaint to the complainant jointly or severally.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.C1 – Tax invoice, Ex.C2 – Subscription details, Ex.C-3 – legal notice.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW2/A – affidavit of Kuldeepsinh Jadeja, One Assist Consumer Solutions Private Limited, having its registered office at 3rd floor, fleet House, next to Marol Metro Station, Marol Naka, Andheri, Kurla Road, Mumabi, Annx.A – terms and conditions,
7. It is evident from Ex.C1 that he complainant purchased I-phone XS 64-GB Space Grey MY9E2HN/A bearing EMIE NO. 357223091498334 from M/s. Fine Electronics, Shop NO.5, Ambedkar Chowk Ballabgarh, Faridabad for the total sale consideration of Rs.96,500/- on dated 14.11.2018 vide bill/invoice No. 13046. The complainant had purchased an Airtel Sim No. 9971041143 in the name of his wife Smt. Anju, which was covered under the scheme “Airtel Secure Claim” Plan Handset Protection in which the accidental damages and liquid damages were covered. As per the said scheme the damages of the said handset was covered to the tune of Rs.65,000/-. The complainant had purchased the said handset for the use of his wife Smt. Anju. At the time of covering the above said handset of the complainant the opposite parties assured the complainant that in case said handset suffered from accidental damage and liquidated damages in that event the opposite parties would make the payment of damages of the handset to the complainant. On 22.09.2019 the handset was kept in the pocket of her shirt and when Smt. Anju was putting the clothes into washing machine at the same time accidentally the handset fallen into the washing machine which was full of water resultantly due to the above said reason accidentally the above noted handset was damaged.
On the other hand, It is evident from Annexure –A, the claim of the complainant was rejected due to lack of duty of care as per the terms & conditions of the policy No.23 i.e “Any damage or loss occasioned from any water borne craft, unless such damage is caused by the accidental ingress of liquid/water, and if the customer has taken reasonable care to protect the Gadget from damage”.
8. Keeping in view of the above, the complainant is not entitled for any claim/relief as claimed. Further the damage had occurred without any external cause and therefore such damage is not covered under the definition of Accidental Damage/Liquid Damage. Hence, no deficiency on behalf of the opposite parties have been proved. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 28.09.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
