Gurpreet Singh filed a consumer case on 17 May 2019 against J.K. Traders in the Rupnagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/19/14 and the judgment uploaded on 19 Jun 2019.
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
....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
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
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.