Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh. Ranjit Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant purchased Samsung Galaxy J7 (4G) mobile vide bill No. 19111 dated 4.11.2015 for Rs. 15000/- from opposite party No.1 and got the same insured from opposite party No.2 by paying Rs. 1000/-. The mobile set of the complainant was snatched from the wife of the complainant namely Ravinder Kaur at Bye Pass Village Mahal Ram Tirath Road, Amritsar. Report to this effect was lodged with the Police post Mahal Bye Pass P.S. Cantonment. Copy of the same is attached. The complainant lodged the claim with opposite party for grant of insurance of the mobile but opposite party No.2 refused to entertain the request of the complainant. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint :-
(i) Opposite party No.2 be directed to pay the insurance amount of the mobile Samsung Galaxy J7 (4G) to the tune of Rs. 15000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of insurance i.e. 4.11.2015 till payment.
(ii) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- alongwith adequate cost of litigation may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed ; that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the notice of this Forum ; that present complaint is baseless and an abuse of process of law to harass the answering opposite party. The complainant has no locus standi to initiate the present complaint. The complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary and proper party and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone ; that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and malafide and hence unsustainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the same may be dismissed. On merits it is submitted that complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy because as per policy terms and conditions it is necessary to inform the police about the theft and get a FIR copy duly stamped and signed. The FIR copy is to be procured within 48 hours of the incident. It is necessary to call toll free customer care within 48 hours. But in the case in hand the complainant has neither lodged any FIR with police station and even not informed the opposite party within 48 hours as per terms and conditions of the policy. For the processing and deciding the claim, complainant has to adopt a particular procedure laid down by the company & IRDA and complete necessary formalities so that the company may assess the admissibility of the claim as per policy terms and conditions. The documents required for assessing the admissibility of the claim are as under:-
- Covering letter
- Original bill on claimant’s name
- Self attested photo ID proof of claimant
- Duly stamped and signed SIM Blocking letter or email copy from service provider duly stamped and signed.
- Insurance claim form
- FIR on police intimation letter
- Cancelled cheque
In case of total loss or theft, depreciation value will be deducted from the total invoice value of the hand set, remaining amount will be transferred to customer’s account.
Within 6 months of registration | 25% depreciation of invoice value |
After 6 months of registration | 50% depreciation of invoice value |
3. However, in the present case complainant has failed to supply the required documents. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy , as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed for and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. Opposite party No.1 did not put in appearance despite service, as such it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
5. In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-1/A, copy of bill dated 4.11.2015 Ex.C-2, copy of application dated 24.2.2016 Ex.C-3, copy of insurance card Ex.C-4, coy of complaint moved to the manager, Perils Pick Services Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
6. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Sanjeet Singh,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Vicky Bathla Ex.OP2/1, copy of Syska Policy terms and conditions Ex.OP2/2, copy of service level agreement Ex.OP2/3, copy of gadget secure job card Ex.OP2/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
8. On the basis of the evidence on record,ld.counsel for the opposite party has vehemently contended that it is admitted that complainant purchased Samsung Galaxy J7 (4G) mobile IMEI No. 352840/07/493375/8 vide bill No. 19111 dated 4.11.2015 for an amount of Rs. 15000/- from opposite party No.1. The complainant got the mobile phone insured from the opposite party after paying a sum of Rs.1000/- as premium. It is the case of the complainant that his mobile set was snatched from his wife namely Ravinder Kaur at Bye Pass village Mahal, Ram Tirath Road, Amritsar. However, no copy of the FIR has been adduced on record by the complainant for the reasons best known to the complainant. It was the duty of the complainant to be vigilant and keep the mobile hand set in dispute with him. But he allowed the possession of the mobile set in dispute in favour of his wife and it is the case of the complainant that mobile handset in dispute was snatched by some miscreant from the hand of his wife on the fateful day. Since the complainant has not taken proper care and protection of the mobile handset in dispute, therefore, opposite party is not liable to refund the price of the mobile hand set in dispute to the complainant and it is contended that there is neither any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties nor the complainant is entitled to relief prayed for and it is contended that complaint is liable to be dismissed and the same may be dismissed .
9. But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the mobile handset in dispute purchased by Ranjit Singh, complainant was snatched away by some miscreants on 24.2.2016 in the area of Amritsar. Requisite report, copy whereof is Ex.C-3 was lodged at P.S. Mahal Bye Pass ,Amritsar which was clubbed with criminal case bearing FIR No.166/15. It is the case of the complainant that the mobile hand set could not be traced till date by the police. The contention that the complainant did not take proper care of the mobile hand set in dispute or passed over possession to his wife , cannot be termed to be any negligence in keeping and maintaining the mobile handset in dispute on the part of the complainant. The complainant has immediately lodged snatching report to the authority concerned within 48 hours of the incident . As per terms and conditions of Syska Gadget Secure policy Ex.OP2/2 in case of total loss or theft, depreciation value will be deducted from the total invoice value of the handset, remaining amount will be transferred to customer’s account as under:-
Within 6 months of registration | 25% depreciation of invoice value |
After 6 months of registration | 50% depreciation of invoice value |
Since the mobile hand set in dispute was purchased for an amount of Rs. 15000/- and the same was lost in snatching incident within a period of 6 months of the purchase thereof, complainant was entitled to 75% of the value of the mobile hand set in dispute from opposite party No.2. Counsel for the opposite party could not refute the clause of the insurance cover on the point of payment of insurance claim. In such a situation the claim of the complainant is required to be allowed to the extent of 75% of the price of the mobile hand set in dispute and the complaint stands allowed accordingly against opposite party No.2 with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint until full and final recovery. Cost of litigation are assessed at Rs. 1000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order ; failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 05.09.2016
/R/
