BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.18 of 2017.
Date of Instt.: 19.01.2017.
Date of Decision: 05.09.2017.
Surender Singh S/o Jage Ram, R/o village Sandlana, Tehsil Barwala, District Hisar, at present H.No.25B New Police Line, Hisar Road, Fatehabad, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
..Complainant
Versus
1. Khurana Mobile Gallary 103, Palika Bazar, Fatehabad, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehabad.
2. Nil Enterprise Care Centre, Palika Bazar, near Gurunanak, Kitab Ghar, Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
3. Avinash Takur Claim Manager, Haryana Jone/Amandeep INFO Fist Floor Plot No.521 Udhog Vihar Faje-5, Gurugram Pincode 122010.
4. Leehan Retail Forth Floor, Sapphire Plaza, New port Road Sakore Nagar Viman Nagar Pune (M.P.) Pin-code 411018.
..Opposite parties.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Mrs.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.
Present: Sh.Pankaj Bansal, Advocate for complainant.
OP No.1 and 2 already ex-parte.
Sh.Raj Kumar Godara, Advocate for OPs no.3 and 4.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a mobile make Panasonic, I.M.E.I. on 10.10.2015 from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.13,000/-. The payment was made in cash. The mobile was got insured through OP No.1 and the mobile was having a warranty of one year. Therefore, the complainant was consumer of OPs. However, after a lapse of 4-5 months on account of rainy water the feet of the complainant slipped and he fell down on the ground in the rainy water. So the mobile which was in the pocket of the complainant was water logged. Regarding the occurrence a complaint was made before the company and the mobile was deposited before OP No.2, who asked the complainant to come after 10-15 days. After that when the complainant again approached to OP No.2 he was informed by OP No.2 that his mobile cannot be repaired and further asked the complainant to deposit original bill, lead, charger and mobile box with him. The same were deposited by the complainant with OP No.2 and the matter was referred to SSK INFO for further necessary action/payment. Thereafter, the complainant got information from manager of company and he was told that within 45 days payment will be received in the account of the complainant or he will be given a new mobile. Thereafter, the complainant made many requests to the OPs, but neither the payment was made nor any satisfactory reply was given by the OPs. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notices were issued to the OPs for 23.02.2017. However, despite service OP No.1 did not appear and as such he was proceeded ex-parte. The OP No.2 was also proceeded ex-parte on 15.06.2017 on account of his non-appearance. OPs No.3 and 4 appeared through counsel but did not file any written version and made statement that a payment of Rs.9650/- has been approved and the same will be disbursed to the complainant within 15 days.
3. In support of his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.CW1 and document as Annexure C1 to C8.
The learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments contended that although the insurance claim has been paid to the complainant by the OPs yet the complainant is entitled for receiving compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him on account of delay committed by OPs in making the payment.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for OPs No.3 and 4 contended that insurance claim has been paid to the complainant perfectly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and now nothing is due against the OPs No.3 and 4. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being infructious.
5. We have perused the entire record of the present case and have also considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the contesting parties. There is no dispute that the insurance claim of the mobile in question has been disbursed to the complainant during the proceedings of the present case. However, a perusal of the record of the case in hand reveals that there is delay in making payment of the same to the complainant by the OPs. A perusal of Annexure C-3 reveals that matter for payment was referred to SSK INFO on 30.03.2016. However, despite many requests made by the complainant the payment was disbursed to him in May 2017 i.e. after a lapse of more than one year. On this point reliance can be taken from case laws titled as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar Kalia 2013 (2) CLT 417 (PB) & M/s Shital International Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited 2012 (1) CLT 326 (Pb.) wherein it has been held that claim not decided/repudiated within 30 days from the date of receipt of the survey report as per sub Clauses 5 of the Regulation No.9, Deficiency in service by insurer. There is enough to reach at conclusion that the insurance company has not acted fairly and due to this the complainant /insured has suffered mental agony and harassment on account of deficient service on behalf of insurance company. Therefore it is evident that the complainant has suffered mental agony and physical harassment on account of deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.3 and 4. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against OPs No.3 and 4 and they are directed to make a payment of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and litigation charges. However, the present complaint is dismissed against OP No.1 and 2 as no deficiency is established against them. This order be complied with within a period of one month from the receipt of the present order otherwise interest @ 8% per annum will have to be paid by the OPs No.3 and 4 from the date of order till realization. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 05.09.2017.
(Raghbir Singh)
President,
Distt.Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad
(Ranbir Singh Panghal) (Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member Member
