DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/213

Date of Institution   : 27.03.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision    : 06.07.2022

Mr. Raminder Singh son of Sh. Mohinder Singh resident of VPO Manihala Jai Singh, Tehsil Patti now At 205, Shivala Colony, Amritsar.  

                …Complainant Versus

1.HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, Having Its Branch Office Service Through Its Branch Manager At District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar Through Its Chairman/Managing Director/Principle Officer.

2.Jai Shankar Telecom, 26, Parkash Plaza, Landa Bazar, Amritsar Through Its Prop./Partner/Principle Officer.  

              …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As Amended Upto Date.

 

Present: Sh. Deepinder Singh Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. R.P. Singh Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. V.K. Sehgal Adv counsel for opposite party No. 2.

 

 

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member 

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT): 

 

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against the HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one Samsung Galaxy S8 Mobile handset from the opposite party No. 2 vide invoice No. 36692 dated 2.5.2017 for Rs. 58,000/- with one year Warranty/Insurance and being insured for all eventualities including theft of the said handset by the opposite party No. 1. It is alleged that theft of the said handset was committed on 12.11.2017 within the insured period and the police complaint was immediately made at PS Sadar, Tarn Taran. The opposite parties were immediately intimated about the said incident and claim formalities were made promptly. The complainant made claim to the effect of the value of the handset but the opposite party No. 1 did not settle the claim till the filing of the present complaint. The above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To pay Rs. 58,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of theft of handset till realization. 

ii) To pay Rs. 40,000/-  as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment along litigation expenses.    

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability as no claim was lodged by the complainant regarding the alleged theft of handset. The complainant has not come with clean hands. The complainant has not made party to the insured i.e. Unicom India Pvt. Ltd., and no cause of action has arisen to the complainant against the opposite party No. 1. On merits, it is denied that the complainant lodged any claim with the opposite party No. 1, so the question of not making good the claim of the complainant does not arise at all. It is also denied that the complainant made several visits or opposite party No. 1 remained mum on the settlement of claim. All other allegations are denied by the opposite party No. 1 and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. The opposite party No. 2 filed written reply by taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, no cause of action against the opposite party No. 2. The complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties etc. On merits, it is denied that the complainant has paid any amount to the opposite party No. 2 for effecting Insurance of the mobile phone. It is also denied that the price of the mobile included the amount of premium of insurance or any Insurance Certificate was issued to the complainant by the opposite party No. 2. It is denied that any theft of the said mobile phone of the complainant has taken place on 12.11.2017. No copy of the alleged FIR has been provided by the complainant to the opposite party No. 2. It is further denied that the opposite party No. 2 was ever intimated about the theft of the said mobile phone. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No. 2. 

5. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of the bill Ex.C-2, copy of insurance documents Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence. 

6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Kumar Ex.O.P1/1 and closed the evidence. 

7. The opposite party No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Kamaljit Arora Ex.O.P2/A and closed the evidence. 

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. Written arguments filed by opposite party No. 1.

9. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has specifically argued that the present complaint is not maintainable as no claim has been lodged by the complainant regarding the alleged theft of his Samsung Galaxy S8 mobile with the opposite party No. 1 till date. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 that no claim whatsoever has been received by the opposite party No. 1 in regard to alleged theft of the mobile phone either through Unicom India Pvt. Ltd., or through the complainant, as such, there is no scope of any cause of action to file the present complaint. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 further argued that the present complaint is not maintainable being premature. 

10. Moreover, from the perusal of record it is established that the complainant has failed to place on record any document to prove that he has lodged the claim with the opposite parties. Even, the complainant has failed to place on record the copy of FIR or DDR to prove the fact that he has made police complaint with P.S. Sadar, Tarn Taran regarding the theft of above said mobile set as alleged in the complaint. Therefore, from the above discussion it is proved that the present complaint is not maintainable being premature and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to lodge his claim with the opposite parties by submitting required documents, if he so desires. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties free of costs by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to District Consumer Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       6th Day of July, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member