Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2021 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he purchased Mobile Phone Mark Apple I Phone 6, 16 GB vide invoice No. 6540 dated 17.09.2015 for Rs.48,749/- including insurance charges of Rs.2499/- from Opposite Party No.1. At the time of purchasing said Mobile Set in question, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 assured that the Mobile Set in question is covered all sorts of loss, damages including water. On 20.08.2016, the complainant was going to his office on Activa and in the way, due to water logging, his active slipped and he fell down. His clothes were water logged. Not only this, the Mobile Set in question which was kept in the pent of complainant also water logged and damaged. The complainant immediately intimated about the loss of Mobile Set in question to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 who further told to contact the insurance company and then, the complainant lodged the complaint with the Opposite Party No.4 for the reimbursement of his loss and thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties, but to no affect. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to replace the Mobile Set in question with new one of same specification or to refund the amount of Mobile Set in question i.e. Rs.46,250/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also to pay Rs.25,000/- on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses and also to pay any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.
3. On notice, none has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, hence Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte.
4. Opposite Party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that the complainant has not claimed any relief against the answering Opposite Party nor any allegation has been laveled against Opposite Party No.3. Not only this, the complainant has impleaded the Opposite Party No.3 without any reason and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
5. Opposite Party No.4 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that that the complainant has not disclosed any particulars of the insurance policy in his complaint. The Opposite Party No.4 has moved an application for direction to the complainant to supply the copy of insurance policy but he has failed to supply the same and hence thee is no contract between the complainant and Opposite Party No.4 and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.4. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
6. Opposite Party No.5 appeared and filed the written reply alleging that it was clearly mentioned that Opposite Party No.3 insured phones will not be accepted as Opposite Party No.3 is known for not clearing claims in most of the cases and same was conveyed to the complainant and phone was returned to the complainant on same time and was asked to come to deposit phone only when clearance from Opposite Party No.3 will come in writing to the complainant, so the complainant is cooking up a false story. Moreover, the complainant was made clear on the same day that Opposite Party No.3 is the one who rejected the insurance claim and it was their decision and Opposite Party No.5 has no role in its rejection since Opposite Party No.5 only provides phone service solution and nothing more. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.5.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
8. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party No.3 also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Ex.RW3/A alongwith copy of document Ex.D1/3. Similarly, Opposite Party No.4 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW4/A and Opposite Party No.5 also made statement that the written reply filed by Opposite Party No.5 may kindly be read as evidence of Opposite Party No.5.
9. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
10. The case of the complainant is that he purchased Mobile Phone Mark Apple I Phone 6, 16 GB vide invoice No. 6540 dated 17.09.2015 for Rs.48,749/- including insurance charges of Rs.2499/- from Opposite Party No.1. At the time of purchasing said Mobile Set in question, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 assured that the Mobile Set in question is covered all sorts of loss, damages including water. On 20.08.2016, the complainant was going to his office on Activa and in the way, due to water logging, his active slipped and he fell down. His clothes were water logged. Not only this, the Mobile Set in question which was kept in the pent of complainant also water logged and damaged. The complainant immediately intimated about the loss of Mobile Set in question to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 who further told to contact the insurance company and then, the complainant lodged the complaint with the Opposite Party No.4 for the reimbursement of his loss and thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties, but to no affect. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
11. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties specially ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.4 has repelled the aforesaid averment and contended that the complainant has not disclosed any particulars of the insurance policy in his complaint. The Opposite Party No.4 has moved an application for direction to the complainant to supply the copy of insurance policy but he has failed to supply the same and hence thee is no contract between the complainant and Opposite Party No.4 and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.4.
12. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant has purchased the Mobile Set in question i.e. Mark Apple I Phone 6, 16 GB vide invoice No. 6540 dated 17.09.2015 for Rs.48,749/- which includes insurance charges of Rs.2499/- from Opposite Party No.1 vide Insurance Policy ID No. 247277, Item No. 19882, copy of the bill is placed on record as Ex.C1 and the contention of the ld.counsel for Opposite Parties-Insurance Company that the complainant has not produced the copy of policy has no affect because in the copy of bill itself, the insurance amount charged by the seller amounting to Rs.2499/- has been specifically written. On the other hand, the contention of the Opposite Parties is that the water logged Mobile Set in question does not come under the guarantee/ warrantee. But we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the Opposite Parties because in the policy coverage itself it is clearly mentioned as under:-
Policy Coverage; Insurance against theft, burglary & housebreaking, accidental damage & accidental fluid damage. Insurer in the event of following occurrence to the insured equipment will approve for repair or replace equipment with same or similar equipment or at their option, will arrange for payment if the equipment suffers accidental physical damage to the insured equipment and/ or such damage clause’s equipment to stop working and fails to work because accidentally fluid has entered its internal circuitry, resulting in stoppage of the insured equipment.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant partly and direct the Opposite Party No.4-New India Assurance Company to pay the insurance amount of Rs.46,250/- (Rupees forty six thousands two hundred fifty only) i.e. the price of the Mobile Set in question alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.29.08.2017 till its actual realisation. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party No.4 within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
14. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
Dated: 27.06.2022.
