Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/450

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fonesafe - Opp.Party(s)

Narinder Chhibba Adv.

22 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 450 dated 19.09.2019.       

                                                Date of decision: 22.12.2022. 

 

Sanjeev Kumar aged 47 years son of Sh. Krishan Lal, resident of House No.8284-D, Street No.1, New Amar Nagar (ATI Road), Ludhiana.                                                                                                     ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Fonesafe through its authorized person, CPP ASSISTANCE SERVICE PVT. LTD.,           Ground Floor, Wing-A, Golf View Corporate Tower-A, Gold Course Road, Sector 42, Gurugram, Haryana-122002.
2. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., Authorized Service Centre Grace Enterprises, 18-AX Model Town Extension, Guru Nanak Tower, Ludhiana.
3. M/s. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, having registered office at First Floor, 165-166, Backbay Reclamation H.T. Parekh Marg, Church Gate, Mumbai-400200.                                                                                                                                                …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gurinder Singh, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Harsh Parpagga, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Complaint against OP2 not admitted vide order                                          dated 10.10.2019

For OP3                         :         Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In nutshell, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Samsung mobile set from opposite party No.2 for a price of Rs.53,900/-  on 31.12.2017 vide invoice Ex. C1. The mobile phone was got insured by availing service of opposite party No.1 by paying premium (Ex. C2). However, the display of the mobile set so purchased developed some defects and due to that the complainant could not use that set. The complainant approached opposite party No.1who on 03.12.2018 issued an estimate bill Ex. C3 amounting to Rs.16,984.58 for cost of repair of Octa, B/Glass. The complainant posted a letter to opposite party No.1 for lodging the claim. The documents were also submitted with a request to settle the claim. The complainant got the mobile set repaired and paid an amount of Rs.17,157/- vide invoice No.3321 (Ex. C7). The technical report is Ex. C8. According to the complainant, non-payment of the claim has caused grave hardship to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.83,000/- as damages. The complainant has also claimed that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.99,984/- i.e. Rs.16,984/- as cost of OCTA, B/glass and Rs.83,000/- as damages along with interest @10% per annum till full and final payment along with cost of litigation.  

2.                The complaint as against OP2 was not admitted vide order dated 10.10.2019.

3.                Upon notice, OP1 appeared and filed written reply and assailed the complaint on the ground that opposite party had informed the complainant that the insurance is provided by M/s. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited and as such, the insurance company is a necessary party. Details of the insurance policy with membership is Annexure-OP1-A. Further opposite party No.1 is not an insurance company who could settle the claim. However, upon intimation of damage from the complainant, opposite party No.1 immediately informed the complainant about the claim procedure including submission of various documents like HDFC claim form, Form for statement of incident, ID proof of the complainant, original repair bill with invoice date. Opposite party No.1 had denied the issuance of final payment invoice date no.3321 and stated it to be fake one and also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Initially the present complaint was filed against opposite party No.1 and 2 and opposite party No.3 was not a party. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application for impleading HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited as party in this case which was allowed vide order dated 13.10.2021. The complainant filed amended title.

5.                Upon notice, OP3 appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary submission that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the claim is premature. Claim of the complainant was closed on the ground of non-submission of requisite documents. Opposite party No.3 further submitted that the complainant opted for the membership of CPP Assistance Services Pvt. Ltd. vide membership No.IM1022201 to secure his mobile phone made Samsung for protection service and security of the mobile phone. The CPP Assistance Services Pvt. Ltd. is the company who is n the business of providing assistance to its customer in getting insurance of the mobile phones by offering a Fonesafe membership wherein the insured is enrolled as a beneficiaries of group mobile all risk insurance policy taken by the said company from HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Accordingly the claims are routed through the said CPP Assistance Services Pvt. Ltd. and processed by opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 has issued a proper policy to the said company with proper terms and conditions. The policy schedule along with wording is marked Annexure-R1. The complainant got his mobile phone insured by paying premium to CPP Assistance Services Pvt. Ltd. who issued a policy to the complainant. The device was insured up to the maximum of the Equipment purchase value for theft, burglary and accidental damage subject to the policy terms and exclusions. The benefits under the policy are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy and the liability of the opposite party is limited to the insured perils occurring within the policy period subject to conditions and exceptions mentioned in the policy terms and conditions. As per the policy the payment of depreciated value of the equipment which shall be calculated after adjustment of compulsory deductible and applying depreciation and based on the age of equipment on the date of theft/damage as per rates specified in the policy. It is further averred that the intimation regarding the damage of the mobile was given by the complainant to CPP Assistance Services Pvt. Ltd.  and not to opposite party  who intimated the insurance company. Since the complainant had chosen CPP Assistance Services Pvt. Ltd. as facilitator for getting insurance, the documents to process the claim were sought by opposite party No.3 to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.3 was constantly following with CPP Assistance Services Pvt. Ltd. to eliminate deficiency in the pending case and ultimately having no response, the claim was rejected for the reason of non-submission of HDFC claim form, statement of incident form, ID proof and repair bill with invoice date by CPP. On merits, opposite party No.3 reiterated the facts mentioned in the preliminary submissions and once again denied for having indulged in unfair trade practice or there was deficiency in service and prayer for dismissal of the complaint is also made.  

6.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The complainant also placed on record the documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C8 and closed the evidence.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted affidavit Ex. RA/A of Sh. Gagan Chawla, Director Finance of opposite party No.1 along with document Ex. OP1/A and closed the evidence. The counsel for opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit Ex. R3/A of Sh. Manoj Prajapati, Manager Legal-Claims of opposite party No.3 along with document Ex. R3/1 and closed the evidence.

8.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.      

9.                It appears from the facts and circumstances of the case that the complainant had been approaching opposite party No.1 for settlement of his claim instead of approaching opposite party No.3, the insurance company. Even after becoming aware of the facts as disclosed by opposite party No.1 to the complainant regarding submission of documents, the complainant did not submit the documents with opposite party No.3 insurance company. As per the insurance company, the claim file was closed due to non submission of the following documents:-

a. HDFC claim form,

b. Form for statement of incident,

c. ID proof of the complainant,

d. original repair bill with invoice date

 

The opposite parties have not submitted any letter or document vide which they demanded said documents from the complainant. Moreover, non-submission of the documents cannot be made a sole ground to close the claim of the complainant. The insurance companies are required to be more liberal in their approach without being too technical.

10.              In this regard, reference can be made to 2022(2) Apex Court Judgment 281 (SC) in case title Gurmel Singh Vs Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the insurance company has become too technical while settling the claim and has acted arbitrarily. The appellant has been asked to furnish the documents which were beyond the control of the appellant to procure and furnish. Once, there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum by way of premium and the Truck was stolen, the insurance company ought not to have become too technical and ought not to have refused to settle the claim on non­submission of the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration, which the appellant could not produce due to the circumstances beyond his control. In many cases, it is found that the insurance companies are refusing the claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds. While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.

Ex. C7 is the copy of tax invoice vide which the complainant paid Rs.17,157/- for repair of his mobile phone.  In the given set of circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the complainant is directed to submit the above said documents to opposite party No.3 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, opposite party No.3 shall reimburse the amount of Rs.17,157/- as per Ex. C7 to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. 

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the complainant is directed to submit the above said documents to opposite party No.3 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, opposite party No.3 shall reimburse the amount of Rs.17,157/- as per Ex. C7 to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. However, there shall be no order as to costs. However, the complaint as against OP1 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:22.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Fonesafe etc.                                     CC/19/450

 

Present:       Sh. Gurinder Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Harsh Parpagga, Advocate for OP1.

                   Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate for OP3.

                   Complaint against OP2 not admitted vide order dated 10.10.2019.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the complainant is directed to submit the above said documents to opposite party No.3 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, opposite party No.3 shall reimburse the amount of Rs.17,157/- as per Ex. C7 to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. However, there shall be no order as to costs. However, the complaint as against OP1 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:22.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.