Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/435/2020

Akshay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chawla Brothers - Opp.Party(s)

Sumit Sawhney

04 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/435/2020
Date of Institution	:	7/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	4/1 /2024

 

Akshay Kumar Son of Sh. Raj Kumar R/o H. No.856, Sector 47-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

1. Chawla Brothers SCO No.1035, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh
2. CPP Assistance Service Pvt. Ltd. having its Corporate office at ground floor , Wing-A, Golf view corporate tower-A, Golf Course Road, Sector 42, Gurugram 122002, Haryana through its Managing Director/authorized signatory.
3. Bajaj Finserve SCO No.57-58-59, First & Second floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager/authorized signatory.
4. Bajaj Finserve Corporate office 4^th floor, Ahmednagar Road, Viman Nagar, Pune through its Managing Director/authorized signatory.
5. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Plot No.149, 4^th floor Industrial area Phase-I, NEXT to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/authorized signatory.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for the complainant
	:	OP No.1 exparte
	:	None for OP No.2
	:	Sh. Anirudh Gupta, Advocate for OP No.3&4
	:	Sh. Kaveesh, Advocate for OP No.5

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that on 6.4.2019 the complainant purchased a Samsung Smart mobile model S 10+8/128 (hereinafter to be referred as subject mobile) from OP No.1, the authorized dealer of Samsung company by paying an amount of Rs.73,900/- vide invoice Annexure Exhibit C-1, by getting the same financed for a sum of Rs.52500/-  from OPs No.3&4. At the time of purchase of the subject mobile, the OP No.1 assured the complainant to get the subject mobile insured with OP No.2 and on the assurance given by OP No.1&2 that in case of damage to the subject mobile by breakage, fire etc.  the insurance company shall be liable to reimburse the claim.  Accordingly the complainant got the subject mobile insured by paying premium of Rs.5399/-  which was also paid by obtaining loan from the financier. OP No.2 issued insurance policy Exhibit C-2 to the complainant. The complainant had been regularly making payment through installment to the financier as is also apparent from Exhibit C-3.  On the morning of 20.8.2019 at 11.00 a.m. when the complainant was going to his office, he met with an accident at Mauli Jagran which resulted in causing damage to the subject mobile as the same had fallen on the road and the damage caused to the subject mobile as  is also evident from photographs Annexure C-4. As the subject mobile was fully insured with the OP No.2, the complainant approached the OP No.1 who directed him to approach the service centre  of Samsung Company as the same is fully insured.  Accordingly, the complainant visited the service centre  and the concerned person inspected the subject mobile   and had given estimate Exhibit C-5 of the subject mobile to the tune of Rs.56587/- by mentioning that handset  has been fully damaged and band need  to be replaced.  Thereafter the complainant approached OP No.2 through email Exhibit C-6 claiming the insured amount of subject mobile as the same was fully covered under  the insurance policy and requested to reimburse the claim amount.  On this, OP No.2 asked the complainant to send the subject mobile through courier which was also sent by the complainant to OP No.2 through courier vide courier receipt Exhibit C-7. However, till date neither the OP No.2 has reimbursed the claim of the complainant nor has returned the subject mobile to the complainant rather rejected the genuine claim of the complainant.  The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP No.1  was properly served and when OP No.1 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 15.1.2021.
3. OP No.2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, non-joinder of necessary party and jurisdiction. It is alleged that the role of the answering  OP is limited to that of mere facilitator as the answering OP being a facilitator got the subject mobile of the complainant insured with insurance company i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.  Ltd.  On merits  admitted that the complainant had purchased the subject mobile by also obtaining loan from M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd. OPs No.3&4 and M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd.  The answering OP granted membership to the complainant under  membership No. IM2835693, vide welcome letter Annexure OP2-A containing all terms and conditions of membership and insurance issued by M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. OPs No. 3&4 resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action.  However, it is admitted that the subject mobile was financed by the answering OPs  to the tune of Rs.52500/-  for purchase of the same and Rs.5399/- for premium amount payable to the insurance company was also financed. It is denied that the complainant has any cause of action against the answering OPs.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. During the pendency of the complaint OP No.5 i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company was impleaded as party and in its written version OP No.5 has not specifically denied that the subject mobile was not insured by it. It is admitted that the subject mobile was damaged in the accident. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
6. In rejoinder, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, complainant and contesting OPs No.2, 3&4 have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents. However, as OP No.5 failed to file evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunity, therefore, vide order dated 28.12.2023 of this Commission, opportunity to file the same was closed
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments on record.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased the subject mobile from OP No.1 for sale consideration of Rs.73900/-  as is evident from Exhibit C-1 and out of which the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.52,500/- by obtaining the loan from OPs No.3&4 as is evident from page 46 of the complaint paper book and further got the subject mobile insured through OP No.2 by paying premium amount of Rs.5399/- by obtaining loan from Ops No.3&4 as is also evident from Exhibit C-3 and the said fact has not been disputed by OPs No.3&4 in their written version  and the subject mobile was admittedly damaged in the accident on 20.8.2019 as is also evident from Exhibit  C-4 the photographs and when the same was got inspected from the authorized service centre, the repair cost of the same was assessed as Rs.56,587 as is also evident from Exhibit C-5 and due intimation regarding the accident was given to OPs No.1, 2&5  and after that on the direction of OP No.2 the subject mobile was sent to OP No.2 through courier as is also evident from courier receipt Exhibit C-7 and till date neither the subject mobile has been returned to the complainant nor the claim of the complainant has been settled by OPs No.2&5, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OPs No.2&5  are unjustified in not settling the claim of the complainant till date and the complaint is entitled for the relief as prayed for as is the case of the complainant or the complaint being false and frivolour is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of OPs.
   2. In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, it is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the insurance policy  Exhibit C-2 and the same is required to be scanned carefully in order to determine the real controversy between the parties.
   3. Perusal of  Exhibit C-2  copy of letter issued by OP No.2 to the complainant indicates that an amount of Rs.5399/- was accepted by OP No.2 as premium amount for the subject mobile which was valid w.e.f. 6.4.2019 to 5.4.2020 by making the  complainant as member of the CPP Group India and  alongwith  the said membership letter had also supplied terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by OP No.5, makes clear on record that the subject mobile was insured by OP No.2 and 5 and the same was valid w.e.f. 6.4.2019 to 5.4.2020.
   4. It is proved on record that the subject mobile was totally damaged in the accident and regarding which information was also given by the complainant to the OP No.2 and accordingly OP No.2 forwarded the same to OP No.5, and thereafter on the direction of OP No.2 the complainant has forwarded the subject damaged mobile to OP No.2 through courier as is also evident from courier receipt Exhibit C-7 and both OPs No.2&5  have not settled the claim of the complainant till date despite of receipt of claim form OP2-B/1 nor have returned the subject  mobile to the complainant, thus the aforesaid act of OPs No.2&5 amounts to deficiency in service and they are liable to settle the claim of the complainant.
   5. So far as the quantum of relief is concerned, as it  is evident from terms and conditions of the subject policy  that 10% compulsory depreciation has to be made on the subject mobile  by taking into consideration the age of equipment alongwith compulsory deductible rates and since it is an admitted case of the parties that  the invoice value of the subject mobile is Rs.73900/-  and 10% of the said amount comes to Rs.7390/-  and also compulsory deductible amount of   Rs.3500/-   has to be made, the complainant is entitled for amount of Rs.63,010/- (i.e. Rs.73900/- minus 7390/- plus 3500/-)
   6. Since in the instant case the  OPs No.2&5 neither returned the subject mobile for repair nor settled the claim of the complainant, therefore, they are liable to pay the Rs.73900/- the price of the subject mobile after  making the aforesaid  compulsory deductions of Rs.10,890/- which comes to Rs.63,010/-.
4.  In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs No.2&5 are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹63,010/-. to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs 2&5 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Complaint qua rest of the Ops stands dismissed as no cause of action proved against them by the complainant.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 4/01/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member