PRESENT

                   Complainant in  person   present.

                   Opponent No. 1 by representative  Amit  Waghmare present.   

                   Oppoent  No.2  Ex-parte.                   

                                       ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President)

1.                The complainant Miss. Hiral Joshi purchased a phone i.e. Samsang A 8 from opp. No. 1 on 21.1.2016 for Rs. 25,080.25.  She had taken Insurance policy from opp. No. 2 on payment of premium of Rs. 1,379.10

2.                The complainant alleged that on 4.11.2016 during journey by local train at 7 p.m. display of phone cracked.   She filed claim as per contract which was rejected on 29.12.2016.

3.                The complainant spent Rs. 7,776.42  for display repair.  She alleged that claim was rejected illegally.  She prayed for direction to opponents to pay Rs. 12,000/- with interest as well as compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and cost Rs. 5,000/-.

4.                The complaint was admitted on 23.1.2017.  On request of complainant name of opp. No. 3 New India Assurance Co.Ltd. was deleted on 2.3.2017.

5.                The opp. No. 2 remained absent though duly served, hence order to proceed ex-parte was passed on 2.3.2017.

6.                The opp. No. 1 CROMA filed written version and denied the claim.  It is denied that, opp. No. 1 advised complainant to purchase additional mobile insurance policy.

7.                The opponent No. 1 alleged that complaint is bad for mis-joinder  of parties as opp. No. 1 is not necessary party.  It is prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.                We have perused complaint, written statement, affidavit of evidence, and written argument.  Perused Gizmo help policy, samsang  Display repair  invoice , samsang A 8 mobile purchase invoice and repudiation letter.

9.                The damage  was caused during warranty period and opp. No. 2 failed to prove that case falls as per exclusion clause.   This is deficiency in service.

10.              The complainant has not proved that opp. No. 1 insisted to take insurance policy against her consent.  The name of opp. No. 2 is deleted.

11.              The complainant is entitle to claim repair charges and reasonable amount of compensation as per law.  We quantify the amount of compensation Rs.3,500/- and cost of litigation Rs. 2,000/- in addition to repair charges.

12.              The opp.No. 1 is under an obligation to fully co-operate complainant for recovery of  claim from opp. No. 2  as policy was taken through complainant.

13.              In the result we passed the following order.

                                                         ORDER

1.                 Complaint No.10/2017 is partly allowed.

2.             Opponent No. 2 is directed to pay Rs.7,775/-( Seven thousand

                    seven  hundred seventy five only)  with interest @ 12 % p.a. from

                   the date of admission of complaint  till payment.

3.                Opponent No.2  is directed to pay Rs.3,500/-(Three  thousand five

                    hundred only) as compensation and Rs. 2,500/-(Two thousand five

                   hundred ) as cost to complainant.  

4.                Copy of this order be sent to both parties.