Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/14

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.K. Traders - Opp.Party(s)

In person

17 May 2019

ORDER

THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No.  14 of 21.02.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    17.05.2018

 

Gurpreet Singh, aged about 35 years, son of Sh. Ajaib Singh, resident of Village Marauli Kalan Tehsil Morinda, District Rupnagar 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. J.K. Traders, Railway Road, Morinda, District Ropar through its Prop.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, GE Plaza Airport Road, Yerawada Pune.  

  

           ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Complainant in person 

OP No.1 exparte

Sh. Amit Gupta, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.2

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1. Sh. Gurpreet Singh, aged about 35 years, son of Sh. Ajaib Singh, resident of Village Marauli Kalan Tehsil Morinda, District Rupnagar    has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.14990/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim passed, along with benefits; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation; to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation costs; any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that complainant had purchased one mobile of OPPO company from the O.P. No.1 for a sum of Rs.14,990/- vide bill No.565 dated 24.10.2018 and the same was got insured by him from the O.P. No.2. O.P. no.1 assured him that in case of loss or theft or breakage of mobile phone then complainant will get the claim amount from OP No.2. On 10.2.2019, the mobile set in question was stolen from the purse of his wife at Morinda. The complainant and his wife were travelling in an autorikshaw and it was raining at that time. Later on, he failed to locate the mobile set in question. Thereafter, on 12.2.2019, the complainant lodged DDR no.187 dated 12.2.2019 at PS Saanjh Kendar, Morinda. After registration of the DDR, he tried to contact the O.Ps for the claim of insurance policy but O.P. No.1 did not pay any heed to his request. Even OP No.2 did not respond to the satisfaction of the complainant. He approached the O.Ps. many times but they kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, this complaint 
3.  On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.1, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.05.2019. 
4. On notice, O.P. No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to file the present complaint; that the claim lodged by the complainant has been processed as per terms and conditions of the policy and his claim was not found tenable on account of described exclusions clause of insurance policy. On merits, it is stated that complainant had purchased one policy in respect of his mobile set of OPPO company for a sum of Rs.14,990/- strictly subject to the terms and conditions of the policy w.e.f. 24.10.2018 to 23.10.2019. During the currency of the said policy, the complainant had intimated one claim with regard to the loss to the insured mobile on 10.2.2019 at about 12.15.PM. The claim of the complainant was duly processed by the company as per terms and conditions of the policy and it was found that the loss of the mobile was covered under the exclusion clause No.11, which reads as under:-.
   •  

Thus the loss reported by the complainant was not covered by the insurance policy in accordance with the Exclusion Clause, as such the claim of the complainant was closed as No Claim. Rest of allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5.    On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the OP. No.2  have tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Jai Singh, Senior Executive Bajaj Allianz Ex.OP2/A along with documents Ex.OP2/B to Ex.OP2/D and closed the evidence. 

6.    We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7.    Complainant Gurpreet Singh, made prayer that he purchased one mobile phone of OPPO Company for a sum of Rs.14,990/- Vide Bill No.565 dated 24.10.2018. After purchase, it was got insured with the O.P. No.2 against loss, theft or breakable by depositing premium of Rs.1333/-. He further made prayer that on 12.2.2019, his mobile was lost. He lodged the DDR No.187 dated 12.2.2019 in/at PS Sanjh Kendr, Morinda. The claim was lodged and it was repudiated by the O.P. No.2 on the ground theft is not covered under the policy. Lastly, the complainant made a prayer to allow the complaint as deficiency on the part of O.Ps. stands proved.

8.    Sh. Amit Gupta, counsel for O.P. NO.2 argued that the sale/purchase of the mobile set is related to OP No.1 and it was insured with O.P. No.2 and the theft comes under exclusion clause. When theft is not covered under the policy then no relief can be granted against the O.P. No.2. Lastly prayed that deficiency remains un-proved and the complaint be dismissed with costs. 

9.    Complainant Gurpreet Singh, purchased mobile set on 24.10.2018 vide bill Ex.C1 is admitted by OP No.2 and the sale/purchase of the mobile set stand proved. Relationship between the complainant and O.Ps. stand established as consumer. So the complaint is maintainable and this forum has the territorial jurisdiction.

 

10.  Coming to the real controversy, whether the complainant is entitled to the relief or not. Purchase of the mobile set was on 24.10.2018 then it was insured by depositing the premium and the theft is alleged dated 12.2.2019. The claim was lodged with the O.Ps. it was repudiated relying upon the policy Ex.OP2/B. During the course of arguments, counsel for O.P. No.2. Sh. Amit Gupta has shown the policy to this forum and has drawn the attention towards relevant exclusion clause Nos. 9,10 & 11, which are reproduced as under:-

                         Clause No 9. "Damage to or Theft or, or costs or changes, when repairing or replacing aerials or battery chargers where these items are the only part of the Handset/Laptop that have been Damaged or stolen and Any loss related to indemnification for the Value added services".

                                      Clause No.10.  "Loss or damage due to theft or attempted theft by any employees of the insured or loss or damage occasioned through the willful act of         the insured or any employee or the willful act of any other person with a connivance of the insured or any employee".

                                      Clause No.11.      "Loss of Handset/Laptop resulting from or caused by theft, or attempted theft from unlocked vehicles or rooms and during the hire or loan of the insured handset/laptop to a third party".

11.     To rebut the O.P. No.2 argument, the complainant made a prayer that he belongs to a Poor family and he purchased the mobile set through the financer and even after the theft he deposited a few installments.

12.     The forum appreciated the policy and arguments advanced by both sides. Policy Ex.OP2/B is the star document and both parties are to obey the conditions laid down in the policy. As referred in the policy forgoing paras clause 9,10 & 11. speaks that when the goods are stolen or lost it is not covered through the policy. When there is specific a recital qua the term theft then no relief can be granted in favour of complainant. Without going in the detail, the forum has come to the conclusion that deficiency on the part of O.Ps remains unproved. Hence, the complaint is without merit.

13.     In the light of discussions made above, the complaint stands dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own cost.

14.     The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 

            ANNOUNCED                                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

            Dated.17.05.2019                                     PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER