BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

Complaint No.368 of 2015.

Date of Instt.:22.12.2015.

Date of Decision: 05.12.2016.

Surender Singh son of Jage Ram resident of village Sandlana Tehsil Barwala District Hisar at present House No.25-B, Police Line, Fatehabad- 94666-72205.

...Complainant

     Versus

1.M/s Khurana Mobile Gallery (Authorized Dealer) 103-B Palika Bazar, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its proprietor.

2.New India Assurance Company Limited Branch Office-Bangaluru-561258, Karnatka through its Branch Manager.

3.Apps Daily Solution Pvt. Limited D3137-39 Oberoi Garden Estates, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 through its Managing Director.

..Opposite Parties.

Before:       Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                    Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

Present:        Complainant in person.

                    Sh.V.K.Mehta, Advocate for OP No.2.

                    OPs No.1 & 3 exparte.

ORDER

                    The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties with the averments that he had purchased a mobile Panasonic Eluga-1 bearing IMEI No.35594100058878/ 355941060058875 for a sum of Rs.9500/- from opposite party no.1 vide Invoice No.9372 dated 07.01.2015. The product in question was insured with OP No.3 through OP No.1 vide policy No.67030246142400000002 Sr.No.16994 dated 07.01.2015 for a period of one year. It has been further averred that after four months of its insurance, mobile in question fell down and got broken, therefore, the complainant visited OP No.1 who obtained his ID proof besides original bill, accessory of the mobile and blank signed cheque  and assured that within one month claim could be settled. Thereafter the complainant visited the OP No.1 time and again and deposited documents alongwith ID proof many a times for settlement of the claim but to no avail. It has also been averred that the OPs have not yet taken any steps to indemnify the complainant, therefore, there is deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint.   In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Ex.CW1 and documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C9.

2.                 On notice OP No.2 appeared and filed its reply stating therein that the present complaint is not maintainable; that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. It has been further stated that on 16.09.2015 the complainant had lodged claim for physical damage of the mobile vide intimation no.AD-D150915-2751194. The claim of the complainant has been settled as per his entitlement and an amount of Rs.4725/- has been credited to his account vide transaction reference No.KKBKH on 1.1.2016, therefore, no claim of the complainant is due towards the OPs.  Other pleas made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made. OPs No.1 & 3 did not appear before this Forum despite notice, therefore, it were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.01.2016. In evidence, the appearing OP has tendered affidavit as Annexure R1 besides documents as Annexure R2 to Annexure R9.

3.                 We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OP No.2  and have gone through the case file carefully.

4.                 Fact regarding purchasing of hand set from OP No.1 (Annexure C1) duly insured by OP No.2 (Annexure R2) is not disputed. The complainant has come with the plea that the mobile phone got broken during the subsistence of insurance period, which was valid for one year, but the Ops did not indemnify the loss suffered by him. The OP No.2, insurer of the mobile has come with the plea that an amount of Rs.4725/- against claim intimation AD-D-150915-2751194 has been credited to the account of the complainant vide transaction reference No.KKBKH on 01.01.2016 (Annexure R6) and said settlement has been made as per terms and conditions of the company.  In the complaint the complainant has specifically mentioned that he had visited the OP No.1 and submitted the documents time and again but when his claim was not settled therefore, he had no other option but to file the present complain.  It is worthwhile to mention here that now the insurance companies are having tendencies to avoid the genuine claims on one pretext or the other and this is main reason of increasing of litigation between the insured and insurance companies. In the present case also the insurance company has violated the provisions of CP Act and terms and conditions of policy because as per Regulation No.9 of Clause 5 it was obligatory on the part of the insurance company to settle the claim within 30 days but it took almost 4 months in settling the claim of the complainant and that too was settled after approaching to this Forum by the complainant.  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. In the present case, the complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 07.01.2015 and the claim regarding loss on account of physical damage of the mobile was lodged with the insurance company on 14.09.2015 but as per admission of the appearing OP the claim was settled on 01.01.2016. This admission 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. Further, Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as V.K.Kariyana Store V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited III (2014) CPJ 182 (NC) has held that Since upon issuance of insurance policy, insurer undertakes to indemnify loss suffered by insured on account of risks covered by policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of insurer. Endeavour of Court should always be to interpret words in which contract is expressed by parties. However, in the present case the OP-insurance company has not followed the terms and conditions of the policy and has failed to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant in time.

6.                           Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down in the above mentioned case laws, the present complaint  is hereby accepted with a direction to the Ops No.2 & 3 to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- to the complainant jointly and severally as compensation for harassment, mental agony including litigation expenses. The OP No.1 has no role to play in the matter in question, therefore, present complaint stands dismissed against OP No.1. This order should be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:05.12.2016.

                                                                      (Raghbir Singh)

                                                                      President,

(Ansuya Bishnoi)                                  Distt.Consumer Disputes

      Member.                                                    Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.