Haryana

Karnal

651/2011

Ashish Gupta S/o Sham Lal Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chollamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Naveen Khettarpal

21 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 651 of 2011

                                                             Date of instt.19.10.2011

                                                                Date of decision:21.12.2016

 

Ashish Gupta son of Shri Sham Lal Gupta resident of House no.1351 Sector 13 Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager SCO 236 Second Floor Sector 12 Karnal.

 

                                                                          ………… Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Naveen Khaterpal Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Rohit Gupta Advocate for the Opposite party.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he purchased a mobile handset LG OPTIMUS ONE P500 for a sum of Rs.8999/-, vide invoice no.LSb-170551 dated 15.6.2011. He had placed the order for purchasing the said mobile handset from his residence in Karnal and the payment for the order was also made by him after receiving the mobile handset at Karnal. The mobile handset was fully insured with opposite party at the time of purchase, for a period of one year. On 19.7.2011, while he was travelling in Delhi Metro from Laxmi Nagar to Rajiv Chowk Metro Station, the mobile was in his pocket and during journey the same was stolen by someone. He tried to locate the mobile, but failed. Thereafter, the matter was reported to Delhi Metro authorities.  He also reported the matter to the local Police Station Kashmiri Gate, vide NCR no.961/2011, but the Police also failed to locate the mobile handset. He applied to the opposite party for claim on 28.7.2011 and submitted all the required documents alongwith application. However, opposite party wrongly repudiated his claim on the ground that the claim was not payable under the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, the act and conduct of the opposite party in repudiating his claim amounted to deficiency in service.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided by this Forum under summary jurisdiction; that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party and as such he was not a consumer and that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

                   On merits, it has been submitted the claim of the complainant was duly processed by the opposite party. The description of loss as provided by the complainant in the Police Report states ”Missing Mobile” and the same was not covered as per policy condition no.2, because theft of the mobile handset for one year from the date of purchase/invoice was only covered. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was made as ‘No Claim’ as per terms and conditions of the policy. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C6 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Jitendra Dhabhai Authorized Signatory Ex.OP/A and the copy of the insurance policy as Ex.OP/B  have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The complainant had purchased one mobile handset on 15.6.2011 and got insured the same with opposite party for a period of one year. On 19.7.2011, while he was travelling in Delhi Metro from Laxmi Nagar to Rajiv Chowk Metro Station, the same had gone missing. The matter was reported to Delhi Metro authorities and thereafter to local Police Station Kashmiri Gate, but the mobile could not be traced out. He lodged claim with the opposite party, but the same was repudiated on the ground that the claim was not payable under terms and conditions of policy.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party laid emphasis on the contention that the mobile of the complainant was insured against theft only and no other loss was covered, but the complainant in his report to the police submitted that his mobile had gone missing. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly made as ‘No Claim’ because missing of the mobile was not covered under the policy.

8.                To wriggle out the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that in the First Information Report lodged by the complainant it was clearly mentioned that the mobile handset had gone missing because there was heavy crowd in the compartment, which clearly means that the same was stolen intentionally by someone from his pocket by taking advantage of the crowd. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was covered under the policy, but the opposite party wrongly and illegally made the claim as ‘No Claim.’

9.                The copy of the insurance policy Ex.C5 shows that the handset of the complainant against theft was covered under the policy and no other loss was covered. Therefore, the material question which arises for consideration is whether the mobile handset of the complainant was stolen. The copy of the First Information Report Ex.C3 shows that the complainant stated before the police that while he was travelling from Laxmi Nagar to Rajiv Chowk Metro Station, there was heavy crowd in the Metro due to which his mobile set had gone missing. Thus, from the contents of the First Information Report, it is emphatically clear that the mobile had gone missing due to heavy crowd in the metro. It was not stated by the complainant that the mobile had gone missing by falling from his pocket. The complainant being layman used the word that the mobile had gone missing due to heavy crowd instead of stating specifically that the mobile was stolen by someone from his pocket by taking advantage of  heavy crowd in the Metro. The facts and circumstances clearly indicate that in the crowd the mobile of the complainant was stolen by someone and would not have gone missing for any other reason. It is a matter of common knowledge that some unscrupulous and bad elements of the society, particularly pick pockets take advantage of the crowd and steal the mobile set, money and other articles from the pockets of the passengers travelling in the Metro, Railways, or buses etc. Looking into all such facts and circumstance, we have no hesitation in observing that the opposite party was not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant merely for the reason that he had not specifically used the word in his police report that his mobile set was stolen, though the language of the report clearly establish that the mobile was stolen by someone from his pocket by taking advantage of the crowed in the metro. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service.

12.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay insured amount to the complainant  alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 21.12.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member