Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/166/2019

Tony Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Mishra

01 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/166/2019
Date of Institution	:	20.3.2019
Date of Decision	:	01/03 /2023

 

Tony Singla S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Singla r/o Flat No. 328, 3^rd floor, Tower No.7,  SBP, VIP Road South City, Zirakpur-140603.

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

1.       HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited through Manager/ authorized, SCO 124-125, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160008.

2.       Future Technology through Director situated at SCO 4, Panchkula-Zirakpur, Light OPP. Big Bazar, Zirakpur 140603.

3.       Samsung Mobile Care through Director situated SCO 62, Ist floor, MDC, Sector 5, Panchkula-134112.

… Opposite Party (ies)

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Nitesh Singhi,  Counsel for OP No.1 OP No.2 &3 exparte.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh. Tony Singla complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OP/OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that on 13.7.2016 the complainant had purchased mobile  handset of Samsung Company from OP No.2, vide bill Annexure C-2. At the time of sale of the subject mobile, the OP No.2  had advised the complainant to purchase insurance policy from OP No.1, which was accordingly purchased by the complainant. On 14.3.2017 when complainant was at his home the subject mobile had fallen and was damaged. Thereafter, the complainant contacted OP No.2, who instructed him to go to OP No.3 the authorized service station and also advised him to complete the formalities regarding insurance. The complainant had sent the information to the OP No.1 about the damage to subject mobile.  Thereafter the mobile was submitted to OP No.3 for its repair, which was also acknowledged by OP No.3, vide acknowledgement of service request which is available at page No.9 of the paper-book of the complaint and when the subject mobile was repaired by the OP No.3, an amount of Rs.7564.42 was paid by complainant to OP No.3 vide invoice dated 6.4.2017. Thereafter the complainant again contacted OP No.2 for insurance claim since the insurance was got provided by  OP No.2 who introduced the complainant to Mr. Deepak a representative of OP No.1 who was available at the premises of OP No.2 and the said Deepak asked the complainant to send email to OP No.1 alongwith hardcopy of the same alongwith all the documents. Accordingly, the complainant sent all documents to the OP No.1. Thereafter the complainant had also emailed his request to OP No.1 regarding claim and also submitted the papers as asked for but till date nothing has been done by OP No.1. After 15-20 days  when the complainant contacted MR. Deepak representative of OP No.1 at the office of OP No.2 and enquired about the claim he informed the complainant that the repair bill has been lost by   OP No.1 and asked for a duplicate copy of the same. Thereafter the complainant approached OP No.3 for supply of duplicate repair bill but it refused to issue the same. In the meantime the father of the complainant suffered severe paralysis attack as a result of which he could not contact OP No.2 and 3. Even the representative of OP No.1 Deepak    was also not available at that time. However, when the complainant again contacted OP No.1, he was informed that the insurance claim has been rejected. Thereafter the complainant sent legal notice to OPs but with no result. In this manner the aforesaid act of Ops amounts to deficiency in service.   OPs were requested several times to admit the claim of the complainant but with no result, hence the present complaint. 

 

2. OP No.1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written reply, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of  maintainability, concealment of fact, locus standi, bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary party and also that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands. On merits, it admitted that the complainant had purchased the policy from the answering OP No.2 and got his mobile insured from the answering OP but denied that the same was purchased by him at the instructions of the OP No.2. It is alleged that all terms and conditions of the policy were made known to the complainant who after going through the same had purchased the policy. It is further alleged that the complainant had never lodged any claim with the answering OP and in fact the complainant was required to lodge the claim under the policy with explanation as to how the loss was occurred. Even the complainant had never given any proof or justification as to how the subject mobile was damaged. It is further alleged that  the complainant had not submitted the original repair bill and photographs of the damage mobile despite of intimation given to the complainant by the answering OP, as a result of which the claim of the complainant could not be processed. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant without any basis and the present complaint is abuse of process of law.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.

 

3. OPs No.2&3 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 17.5.2019.

 

4. On 26.7.2021, the Counsel for the complainant stated at bar that he does not wish to file rejoinder as is reflected in order dated 26.7.2021.  

 

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments available on record.

 

1.     At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the subject mobile was insured by OP No.1 vide policy schedule Annexure OP-1/1, which was valid for the period from May 12, 2016 to May 11 2017, by receiving annual premium of Rs.1603/- from the complainant, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the OP No.1 unjustified in not clearing the genuine claim of the complainant on the ground that proper documents were not submitted by the complainant with OP No.1 and the said act of the OP No.1 amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant or if OP No.1 was justified in not  processing the claim of the complainant for want of non-submission of documents by the complainant with OP No.1 and the complaint of the complainant being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed as is the  defence of OP No.1.

 

2.     The learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that as it is proved on record that all the documents required for processing the claim of the complainant were submitted by the complainant with OP No.1 by submitting claim form Annexure C-1, bill of the mobile Annexure C-2 and format for statement of incident and acknowledgement of service request annexed with Annexure C-3 and also by issuing legal notice Annexure C-4, the non-processing of the claim of the complainant by OP No.1 on frivolous ground, amounts to deficiency in service on its part and the complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed.

 

 

3.     On the other hand the learned counsel for OP No.1 contended with vehemence that as it is proved on record that the complainant had not submitted the required documents including the repair bill and the photographs of the damaged subject mobile despite of instructions of OP No.1 to the complainant to submit the original bill to the OP No.1 but the same was not submitted by him,  there is no fault on the part of the OP No.1 and in fact as it is clear that the complainant himself is at fault by not submitting the documents required for processing the claim and the complaint of the complainant be dismissed with cost.

 

4.    There is no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for OP No.1 as the defence of the OP No.1  from the very beginning is that the complainant had not submitted any  document explaining the incident i.e. how the mobile was damaged and also that no repair bill of the subject mobile  including photographs of the damaged mobile were submitted, stands falsified  from the documents Annexed  with the written statement of OP No.1 i.e. the tax invoice Annexure OP-1/3, which clearly shows that an amount of Rs.7564.42 was spent by the complainant for the repair of the subject mobile by paying the same to the OP No.3. Similarly, acknowledgement of service request Annexure OP-1/4 further indicates that the subject mobile was handed over by the complainant to OP No.3 for its repair and the LCD of the subject mobile was found damaged. Not only this, even the photographs of the damaged subject mobile Annexure OP-1/2 have also been produced and proved on record by OP No.1, which clearly show that the LCD of the subject mobile was damaged in the incident. Since all the aforesaid documents have been produced and relied upon by OP No.1 and the OP No.1 has failed to explain how these documents came into its possession, it is safe to hold that in fact all the aforesaid  documents were available with OP No.1 and the same were in fact submitted by the complainant and despite of having the aforesaid documents in its possession, the OP No.1   had not cared to verify the authenticity of the  documents through its surveyor nor it had processed the claim of the complainant despite of having sufficient time and material available with it to process the same.  So far as the  defence of OP No.1 that the complainant had not explained the manner in which the subject mobile was damaged, the same further stands falsified from Annexure C-1 the claim form which specifically states the manner in which the mobile was damaged as the complainant had specifically mentioned that when he got imbalanced while stepping the subject mobile dropped  down and resultantly the same had been damaged.  Even the said fact is also been stated by the complainant in Annexure C-3 i.e. the format for statement of incident, which as per the case of the complainant was duly submitted to  OP No.1.
5.    As it has come on record that despite of having the aforesaid  documents i.e. OP No.1/2 to OP No.1/4 including claim form  and other documents Annexure C-1 to C-3, with the OP No.1  and also that OP No.1 was informed by complainant through legal notice Annexure C-4 that all the documents have already been submitted, OP No.1 did not care to  process the claim of the complainant till date,  the said act of the OP No.1 amounts to gross deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 especially when it has come on record that complainant had paid an amount of Rs.7564.42 for the repair of subject mobile  as is also evident from Annexure OP-1/3 having been produced & proved by OP No.1. Hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.7564.42 minus Rs.1250/- deductible  as per item 10.20 of the policy schedule Annexure OP-1/1 since subject mobile  was insured for a sum between Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.

 

4.     In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is accordingly partly allowed and OP  No.1 is directed as under :-

 

1. to pay ₹6314.42 which is rounded off to ₹6314/- (Rs7,564.42-Rs.1250/-)to the complainant(s) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 20.3.2019  till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of ₹2000/- to the complainant(s) as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her/him/them;
3. to pay ₹1000/- to the complainant/s as costs of litigation.

5.     This order be complied with by the OP No.1 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it/they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

6.     The complaint against rest of the OPs stands dismissed.

7.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/03/2023 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member