Delhi

East Delhi

CC/443/2016

ISHMEET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

GURUKRIPA COMM - Opp.Party(s)

10 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 443/16

Shri Ishmeet Singh Juneja

S/o Shri R.S. Juneja

R/o C-45, Ground Floor

Anand Vihar, Delhi – 110 092                                       ….Complainant

Vs.    

1. Guru Kirpa Communication

Through its Proprietor

X/1211, Satsang Marg

Chand Mohalla, Delhi – 110 031

2. TMW Care Protection

Through its Proprietor

Shri Karan Bhatia

520-A/1, Street No. 2

Main 60 ft. Road

Vishwas Nagar, Delhi                                                      …Opponents

Date of Institution: 26.08.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 10.09.2018

Judgement Passed on: 10.09.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Ishmeet Singh Juneja against M/s. Guru Kirpa Communication (OP-1) and TMW Care Protection (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant purchased an iPhone 6 Apple, bearing IMEI no. 359226064252438 from M/s. Guru Kirpa Communication (OP-1) vide invoice no. 1633 dated 28.03.2015 for an amount of              Rs. 59,500/-.  The said mobile was insured by M/s. Gurukirpa Communication (OP-1) as a cashless claim with TMW Care Protection  (OP-2) vide receipt no. 12825, Book No. 257 for a period of 2 years by paying an amount of Rs. 5,950/-.

            It was stated that on 08.07.2015, the phone was snatched by two unknown persons from the hands of the complaint for which an FIR was registered with P.S. Anand Vihar vide no. 0478/15 under Section 356/379/34 IPC. 

            On 09.07.2015, the complainant visited the shop of OP-1 and informed him regarding the snatching of mobile phone and handed over the copy of FIR, copy of invoice and subscriber copy.  He was assured by OP-1 that the matter would be informed to OP-2 and complainant will get the payment of insurance.  Complainant already sent the information to OP-2 on email id

            On 17.07.2015, the complainant sent letters to OP-2 and again on 20.07.2015 on the new address, provided by OP-1 and demanded the insurance amount of Rs. 59,500/-, but nothing has been done.

            The complainant came to know that OP-2 was doing the business of insurance illegally as they had no registration number from the regularity authority of insurance.    

            Legal notice dated 02.09.2015 served to OP-2 which was neither replied nor complied.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to pay the amount of Rs. 59,500/- alongwith 24% interest; Rs. 50,000/- compensation on account of suffering and cost of litigation.

             The complainant has annexed copy of invoice, insurance receipt, FIR, copy of letter and envelope received back, letter dated 11.07.2015, copy of letter dated 17.07.2015 with postal receipt and copy of legal notice dated 02.09.2015 and its postal receipt alongwith complaint.

 3.        Counsel for OP-1 appeared, but did not file the WS and stopped appearing.  OP-2 did not put the appearance inspite of notice; hence, both OPs were proceeded ex-parte.

4.       Evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of complainant where he has got Shri Jaspreet Singh Juneja, authorized representative examined.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of the Special Power of Attorney (Ex.CW-1/K), copy of invoice (Ex.CW-1/A), copy of insurance receipt (Ex.CW-1/B), copy of FIR (Ex.CW-1/C), copy of letter and envelope received back with the remarks “Left address” (Ex.CW-1/D & 1/E), letter dated 11.07.2015 (Ex.CW-1/F), copy of letter dated 17.07.2015 with postal receipt (Ex.CW-1/G & 1/H) and copy of legal notice dated 02.09.2015 and its postal receipt (Ex.CW-1/I & 1/J).  

5.         We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  If we look at Ex. CW1/B which is the insurance receipt, it bears the stamp of OP-1 i.e. Gurukirpa Communications.  Thus, it is clear that OP-1 had endorsed the insurance protection plan.  Once OP-1 has endorsed the same, he also becomes liable as it is OP-1 who was selling the protection plan.  As complainant has stated his claim has not been settled/processed despite communication, non-processing of claim definitely amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

            As per terms and conditions of protection plan, in case of theft claim with FIR under Section IPC 379/380, if the theft is within 3 to 6 months of purchase, 50% will be the compensation amount.  Hence, we hold OP-1 liable to pay Rs. 29,250/- as per terms and conditions of the protection plan.  Further, OPs shall also be liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and pain and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.

            This order be complied within a period of 30 days, if not complied, the total awarded amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.      

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

        President