Delhi

New Delhi

CC/261/2016

Vijay Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Croma Centre - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.261/2016                                                    Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Vijay Sharma,

S/o  Sh. Prem Prakash Sharma,

R/o 1-319, Naraina Vihar,

 New Delhi-28.

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. Croma Centre,

Rajouri Garden Branch,

    New Delhi-1100.

 

2. Gizmo help Insurance,

Corporate office at

76-B, Udyog Vihar, Ph. IV,

             Gurgaon-122001

 

3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

505-507, 5^TH Floor, Arunachal Building,

19, Barakhamba Road

New Delhi-01.

 

Also at:

 

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

FINANCIAL HEIGHTS

(GIZMO Help Claims Division),

607, Kirti Shikhar District Centre Janakpuri,

New Delhi-58.

Opposite Parties.

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that on 12.11.2015, the complainant purchased I  Phone 6S 16GB Rose Gold mobile set bearing IMEI No.353287073733905 for a sum of Rs.73,700/- from OP-1. The OP-2 insisted the complainant to insure the handset in question with OP-3.   As such, the complainant insured the mobile in question.  On 29.12.2015, while the complainant was passing through Kashmere Gate, the said mobile was stolen from his pocket by two persons.  He immediately lodged the complaint on the App of Delhi Police as well as also filed a written complaint online regarding the mis-happening on the website of Delhi Police.

2.     The complainant approached OP-2 for getting the claim.  The official of OP-2 asked the complainant to approach OP-3 and complete the formalities as required by OP-3.   The complainant completed all the formalities regarding the  claim and submitted the claim form with OP-3.  The OP-3 vide letter dt. 1.3.2015, repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the claim is not-payable as the same falls under exclusion clause 7.1. of the  terms and conditions of policy in question.  Despite several requests, OP-3 failed to honour the claim of the complainant, he therefore, sent a legal notice dt. 15.3.2016 thereby  calling upon all the OPs to release the claim amount but all in vain.  Complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for rederssal of his grievance.

3.     Complaint has been contested by the OP-2 & 3.  In the written statement, OP-2 has pleaded that in good faith OP-2 has facilitated the complainant in getting his claim expeditiously processed by OP-3.  After receiving the documents from the complainant on 8.2.2016, OP-2 duly forwarded the same to OP-3. The OP-3, after considering the claim repudiated the same in accordance with terms and conditions of the policy. OP-2 is not liable in any form toward the liability of the same claim as no case of deficiency in services has been made against it.

 

4.     In its written statement  it is stated by OP-3 that in case of loss, if any, liability of company is strictly confined to the terms and conditions of the policy. The claim of the complainant is not payable as per exclusion clause 7.1 of the policy which clearly stipulated that “ loss, such as lost, forgotten and misplaced, left unattended, missing, fallen and any loss under mysterious circumstances is not payable”, hence the  claim is rightly repudiated.

5.     Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit. 

6.     Despite several opportunities none appeared on behalf of OPs for addressing the arguments

7.     We have heard arguments advanced at the Bar on behalf of complainant  and have perused the record.

8.     Some facts are not denied by the parties such as the Insurance of the mobile in question as well as the theft.  It is stated on behalf of OPs in their written statement that the complainant opted to lodge an online FIR  i.e. meant for “Article Lost” whereas the Insurance Policy in question covered “stolen” and “lost” is excluded as per clause 7.1 of the policy terms and conditions, hence the claim was rightly repudiated.

9.     The sole question for our consideration is whether the repudiation of the claim under exclusion clause 7.1 of the policy terms and conditions is justified or not? 

10.    Perusal of the copy of FIR as well as claim form shows that the complainant has used the term “stolen” against his lost mobile in question and not the word “Lost” for the theft in question.  The OP-3 Insurance Co. has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that as per exclusion clause 7.1 the lost is not covered.  In the present case, the handset in question was not lost but was stolen by two persons, hence the repudiation of the claim of the complaint under the pretext of exclusion clause 7.1 of the policy in question is not justified and arbitrary which amounts to deficiency in services. We, therefore, hold OP-3  guilty of deficiency in services and direct it as under:

1. To pay a sum of Rs. Rs.73,700/- -  along with 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 22.04.2016 till realization.

 

2.  Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards  compensation which will also include the cost  of litigation.

 

This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order be sent to both parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on  02/08/2019

 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER