Delhi

North East

CC/241/2014

Praveen Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JMD Enterprise - Opp.Party(s)

13 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: N-E

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.241/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Praveen Kumar S/o Prabhu Singh R/o D-17/503, East Gokulpur, Amar Colony, Delhi-110094.	Complainant
	Versus
	JMD Enterprises C-3/161-162, Yamuna Vihar Delhi-110053.   The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 304, 3rd Floor, Crescent Chamber, Opp. Bombay House, Fort Bombay Pin. No. 400001.
		Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	18.06.2014
	DATE OF DECISION      :	25.04.2016

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

Manju Bala Sharma, Member:-

 

 

 

 

Order

 

 

1.           The facts relevant for the disposal of this complaint are that the complainant purchased a Micromax Mobile on 7.3.2014 from JMD Enterprises (OP2) vide IMEI No. 91134502167101 and got insurance of the mobile in question from insurance company (OP1) available at OP2 shop against theft, accidental and electrical fault and paid Rs. 1122/- for the insurance. On 19.4.2014 the mobile in question was stolen and information in this regard was given to the insurance company (OP1) and police also. It is further stated that though the complainant has completed all the formalities but OP1 has repudiate the claim of complainant. Pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP1 the complainant prayed that a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for causing mental, social and economic harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses may be granted.
2.           OP2 has been discharged vide order dated 1.8.2014.  OP1 has filed its reply and took preliminary objection that the OP has supplied a copy of terms and conditions to the complainant and as per terms and condition the present complaint is not maintainable and that over 60 days have passed from the date of loss the complainant was unable to comply with shortfall of documents despite repeated requests, hence due to insufficient proof of loss to establish liability claim is treated as barred. The claim of complainant has been closed and treated as “No Claim” under the terms and condition of policy and that there is no deficiency on the part of OP. On merit the OP admitted that the mobile in question was insured with it but denied all the allegations contained in the complaint.
3.           Replication to the reply has been filed by the complainant reiterating the facts stated in the complaint. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by both the parties reiterating the facts stated in their respective complaint and reply. Complainant has filed copy of the bill of the mobile phone, copy of pickup and drop service with FREE HANDSET INSURANCE alongwith term and conditions of insurance policy, copy of Declaration Form, Theft Claim alongwith copy of FIR which are marked as C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 respectively. OP has filed copy of terms and condition of Insurance policy Exhibit RW1/1, copy Pickup and Drop service with FREE HANDSET INSURANCE Exhibit RW1/2 and copy of claim letter sent to complainant for damage/theft of mobile set as Exhibit RW1/3.
4.           Heard the complainant and counsel for OP1 and gone through the record. The complainant in his complaint has not stated as to how the mobile in question has lost. On going through the copy of FIR it is found that the complainant has put his mobile for charging and went to some shop for 15-20 minutes and when came back found the mobile missing. However in the Declaration theft claim form the complainant stated that he put his mobile for charging in his house and went to bring something from the nearby shop and when came back found the mobile missing. The counsel for the OP states that the case of the complainant is not covered under the term and conditions of insurance policy copy of which was supplied to the complainant and claim file of complainant has been closed as “No Claim” due to the reason take evidence of OP:-

“Handset lost under mysterious circumstances, lost, fallen, disappearance/missing of handset, forgotten or misplaced or left unattended is outside the scope of policy.

Insufficient proof of loss for admission of liability due to deficiency/mismatch of / is relevant claim documents.

Over 60 days have passed from the date of loss and the claimant or beneficiary in unable to comply with shortfall of documents despite of repetitive request, hence due to insufficient proof of loss to establish liability, claim is treated as barred.”   

 

5.           We have gone through the terms and condition of the insurance policy. One of the condition to which the insurance policy does not cover is loss resulting from or caused by theft, or attempted theft of insured equipment, left in unattended vehicle room………………
6.           In the case in hand as the complainant has stated in his complaint to police/insurance company that he left the mobile while being charged and went to a shop for 15-20 minutes when his mobile was stolen. The complainant did not take precautions like a prudent man and left the mobile while charging. There is violation of the term and conditions of the policy and clear contradiction in the stand taken by the complainant in his complaint before the police and in the complaint before the insurance company, Had he mentioned the fact in the FIR that the charging was at the house of the complainant the police would have inquired the matter in that context. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs Ajit Kumar IV (2013) CPJ 137 (NC) that there is clear violation of the term and condition of the policy in the present case. We dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

 

7.           Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

 

8.           File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 25.04.2016)   

 

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi)           Member

(Manju Bala Sharma) Member