Delhi

East Delhi

CC/408/2016

LOKESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HOTSPOT SPICE RETAIL - Opp.Party(s)

28 Nov 2019

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. 408/16

 

Shri Lokesh Kumar Gupta

S/o Shri D.S. Gupta

Chamber No. F-520, Lawyer’s Chamber

Karkardooma Court, Delhi – 110 032

Off.: CR-241, Lalita Park

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                    ….Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. Hot Spot Spice Retail Limited.

Through its Manager/Concerned Person & Ors.

D-60, Main Vikas Marg

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092  

 

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd..

Through its Regional Manager

Regional Office-Claims Hub

2-B, Unity Building Annexe, Mission Road

Bangalore – 560027, Karnataka                                      …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 05.08.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 28.11.2019

Judgement Passed on: 06.12.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

           This complaint has been filed by Shri Lokesh Kumar Gupta against    M/s. Hot Spot Spice Retail Limited (OP-1) and M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.        The facts in brief are that on 26.03.2014, the complainant purchased a mobile phone, make Samsung, Model Note-3, N9000, IMEI No. 351540060333101 from OP-1.  The officials of OP-1 handed over the bill of the mobile phone next day vide invoice no. 100784678 dated 26.03.2014 stating that they generate the invoices after the closing the ‘Sales of the Day’.  He also purchased a mobile insurance policy in the name & style of ‘Daily Ultimate Protection” vide invoice no. 100784659 on 26.03.2014 itself for Rs. 2,450/-.  The insurance policy of OP-2 was activated by the official of OP-1 online.

           It was stated that on 07.03.2015, the phone of the complainant was stolen from his pocket at Community Centre, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar at about 08.40 p.m.  He lodged a FIR No. 499 u/s 379, IPC, on 07.03.2015 at P.S. Shakarpur.  The complainant submitted his claim within the stipulated period.  The complainant visited the office of OP-2 several times, but could not get any satisfactory reply.  He was shocked to receive a repudiation letter dated 08.08.2015 from OP-2 stating “Invoice No. Mismatch with the Sales Declaration”.

           It was also stated that the challan, invoices/bills and activation of policy online were generated/activated ‘while on purchase’ by OP-1 on behalf of OP-2, therefore tampering of any document or non disclosure of material facts was derogatory and defamatory. 

It was stated that at the time of theft, the phone was under the cover of insurance policy.  Therefore, the repudiation of the claim was a malafide and mischievous act.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OPs to return the amount of Rs. 44,800/- alongwith 18% interest; compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of mental pain and agony and cost of litigation.   

During the course of proceedings, the complainant dropped M/s. Daily Ultimate Protection from the array of parties.  Thereafter, Amended Memo of Parties was filed.    

3.        In reply filed on behalf of OP-1, they have stated that they were just a retailer and there was no deficiency in service on their part.  Other facts have been denied.

In reply filed on behalf of OP-2, they have stated that this forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the address of the complainant was of Faridabad and the mobile was stolen in Faridabad; the policy was issued from Bangalore and address of New India Assurance Company was of Greater Noida;  the mobile phone was purchased from Lajpat Nagar.

It was also stated that Activation time of the policy (26.03.2014 at 17.58 hours) was prior to handset purchase (26.03.2014 at 22:23:49 hours).  Hence, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as per the following terms and conditions of the policy:

“If the documents are found tampered; non disclosure of material facts; fraud/misrepresentation”.    

It was denied that the complainant had filed any FIR against the theft of his mobile phone.  It was stated that the claim form was dated 10.06.2014, whereas the theft of the mobile phone was 06.06.2014, therefore, there was delay of 4 days in filing the claim form.  Other facts have also been denied. (which seems to be a typographical error as date of incident of theft and FIR are of even date i.e. 07.03.2015).

It has been stated that insurance policy to Apps Daily Solutions Private Limited vide policy no. 670302/46/13/24/00000008 was issued.

4.        Complainant have filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-1 and OP-2, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.        In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited copy of invoice dated 26.03.2014 (Ex.CW-1/A), copy of insurance invoice dated 26.03.2014 (Ex.CW-1/B), copy of FIR No. 499/2015 dated 07.03.2015 (Ex.CW-1/C), copy of documents submitted for claim (Ex.CW-1/D), copy of repudiation letter dated 08.08.2015 (Ex.CW-1/E), copy of legal notice dated 10.10.2015 (Ex.CW-1/F) and its postal receipts (Ex.CW-1/G).

           In defence, OP-1 have examined Shri Ramesh Kumar, AR of OP-1, who has deposed on affidavit.   He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS. 

           OP-2 have examined Ms. Kavita Jain, Administrative Officer of OP-2, who has also deposed on affidavit.   She has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS. 

6.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  The complainant is aggrieved by non settlement of his claim, which was insured with OP-2, vide repudiation letter dated 06.08.2015 with the reason “Activation time (26.03.14 17:58) was prior to handset purchase date (26.03.14 22:23:49), Invoice no. mismatch with sales declaration”.

           The defence raised by OP-3 in their WS that this forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, it is seen that the facts mentioned in the WS do not pertain to the present complaint. 

           If we look at Ex.CW-1/A and Ex.CW-1/B which are the invoices for handset and insurance, issued by OP-1, the factum of insurance and theft have not been not disputed.  The complainant has filed FIR dated 07.03.2015, which is of even date of incident and OP was informed on 10.03.2015 as evident from claim form.

           The repudiation of complainant’s bonafide claim merely on the ground that the time of activation of policy was prior to the time purchase of handset when both the invoices are of same date i.e. 26.03.2014.  Further, no notice was given to the complainant with respect to bringing this error to his knowledge at the time of issuing policy.  It was only when claim was filed, OP-3 has raised this objection, which is to avoid their liability.

           The repudiation of claim of complainant on a flimsy ground that there was time mismatch amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct OP-2 to pay Rs. 38,080/- (Rs. 44,800/- - 15% depreciation) as the incident of theft happened almost after 11 months from the date of purchase.  Since, OP-2 did not settle the bonafide claim of the complainant it also amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is also awarded in the favour of the complaint. 

           This order be complied within a period of 30 days.  If not complied, the total award amount and amount of compensation shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till its realization. 

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

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                        (SUKHDEV SINGH)

       Member                                                                           President