Delhi

North

RBT/CC/202/2022

RAJESH GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

LEEHAN RETAILS PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

28 Mar 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Phone: 011-23969372; 011-23912675 Email: confo-nt-dl@nic.in

RBT/CC No/202/2022

                           [DCDRC-V CC No.79/2018]

In the matter of

Sh. Rajesh Goel    

S/o Sh.Ram Kishan Goel

R/o House No.BC-39, West Shalimar Bagh

Dehi-110088                                                                                        ...Complainant

Versus

Kanchan  Dhananjay Vidhate

(Director-M/s Lehan Retails Pvt.Ltd.)

R/o PL398, Indraprastha Society, Manjari Road

Hadapsar, Pune-411028 (Maharashtra)                                        ...Opposite party-1

 

Sahil Dhananjay Vidhate

(Director-M/s Lehan Retails Pvt.Ltd.)

R/o PL398, Indraprastha Society, Manjari Road

Hadapsar, Pune-411028 (Maharashtra)                                        ...Opposite party-2

 

 

M/s.Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd.

Regd. Address; Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road

Shop No.29, Pune-411001 (Maharashtra)                                    ...Opposite party-3

 

Office address:

4th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No.-80

S.No.232, New Airport Road

Near Sympiosis College, Sakore Nagar

Viman Nagar, Pune-411014 (Maharashtra)                                   

           

ORDER
28/03/2024

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

         The present complaint was been received by way of transfer vide order No.F.1/SCDRC/Admn./Transfer/2022/330 dated 16/04/2022 of Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, where the matter was transferred from DCDRC-V (North West) to this Commission.  

1. The Complainant, Sh. Rajesh Goel has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in services, unfair trade practice and malpractice against, Ms.Kanchan Dhananjay Vidhate, OP-1 and Sh. Sahil Dhananjay Vidhate, OP-2 (directors of M/s Leehan Retails Pvt.Ltd.) and M/s Leehan Retails Pvt.Ltd as OP-3 and Tara Electronics as OP-4.
2. Facts as per the complaint are that, OP-3 is engaged in the business of providing gadget insurance by the name of ‘Syska’. OP-1 and OP-2 are directors of  OP-3 and managing day to day affairs of OP-3.    
3. On 15/01/2015, the complainant purchased one apple I-phone 6 Gold for Rs.52,500/- vide bill NO.RI-29985 from OP-4 and got the same insured with Syska Gadget Secure vide policy/coupon No.99753275 under Insurance plan SGI-1999 by paying Rs.1,999/-.
4. On 19/06/2015 the insured mobile phone was stolen from the house of the complainant for which an FIR bearing No.765/2015 under section 380 IPC was immediately registered with PS: Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.   A claim was registered with OP vide Claim IN (CIN) No. 1506198420.  
5. The complainant complied with all the necessary formalities for processing the claim by submitting the required documents such as: (1) Self declaration (2) Mobile Insurance claim form (3) Sim Block confirmation form (4) Sim card replacement form (5) Form 4A-Deed of indemnity and subrogation (6) copy of FIR and (7) cancelled cheque.   
6. But the claim was rejected on the ground ‘claim does not meet eligibility criteria”. It has been alleged by the complainant that OPs have rejected his claim without any satisfactory reply on arbitrary ground.  The rejection of the claim has caused financial loss, severe mental agony and harassment.  As, OP-3 did not settle the claim, the complainant was constrained to purchase new mobile handset for his personal and official use.   
7. Legal notice dated 11/12/2017 was issued to OP-3 demanding a settlement of claim of Rs. 52,500/- alongwith damages and litigation expenses, which was neither replied nor complied with.  Hence, the present complaint with prayer for directions to OPs to pay Rs.52,500/-; compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- ; cost of Rs.11,000/-  and any other order as deemed fit and proper. 
8. The complainant has annexed the copy of the Master data of OP-3 as available on the website of MCA as Annexure-A; copy of retail invoice dated 15/01/2015 issued by OP-4 as Annexure-B, an email dated 17/01/2015 received from OP-3 as Annexure-C; FIR No.765/2015 dated 19/06/2015 with PS: Shalimar Bagh as Annexure-D; letter dated 26/06/2015 alongwith claim form as Annexure-E; copy of cancelled cheque as Annexure-F and Legal notice alongwith postal receipt with the complaint . 
9. Notice of the present complaint was issued to OPs. Written statement was filed on behalf of OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3.  They have taken preliminary objection that the claim for alleged loss was due to theft and there is no forceful act.  Negligence is not covered by the policy terms and conditions.
10. The insurance booklet was handed over to the complainant containing terms and conditions. Since, the complainant’s claim comes under the term negligence hence, it is not payable.  
11. The complainant has given entirely different version in the FIR and statement of claim.  The claim is based on false story that complainant had kept his mobile on the dining table at around 10.30 am and at about 12.00 noon the mobile was not there.  Whereas, in the jobsheet the complainant has stated “customer was travelling by metro train and he kept his handset in his pant pocket and there was crowded due to someone stolen his handset from his pocket and customer unaware.”
12. It has been submitted that OP-1 and OP-2 are the Directors of OP-3. OP-3 is only a service provider. The insurance is provided by M/s.New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and claim if any must be lodged with the insurer.  Thus, there is non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party.  The claim has been rejected as per policy terms and conditions.  It has been denied that the complainant immediately informed the police officials and lodged an FIR.  
13. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied with the prayer for dismissal of the complaint.   Copy of the Syska Gadget Secure Job Card dated 15/01/2015 has been annexed as Annexure-A with the written statement.  
14. Rejoinder to the written statement has been filed by the complainant where the contents of the complaint have been reiterated and those of the written statement have been denied. 
15. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the complainant reiterating the facts of the complaint. He has got exhibited the copy of record of MCA with details of DIN numbers of Directors and registered office as Ex.CW-1/1; copy of the bills of the insured I-phone and copy of email dated 17/01/2015 are Ex.CW-1/2 and Ex.CW1/3, FIR No.765/2015 registered with PS: Shalimar Bagh is EX.CW1/4, claim No.150619840 and cancelled cheque and other documents are Ex.CW-1/5 to Ex.CW-1/12
16. He has also got exhibited the L egal notice dated 11/12/2017 alongwith postal receipts and tracking report as Ex.CW1/13 to Ex.CW-1/15.
17. OP has got examined Sh. Pramod Lakade, Authorised Representative of M/s. Leehan Retails Pvt.ltd.  He has also repeated the contents of the written statement and has got exhibited the copy of the Board Resolution as Ex.RW-3/1; copy of insurance booklet as Ex.RW-3/2 and copy of job card as Ex.RW-3/3. 
18. We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsels for respective parties and have gone through the material placed on record.  The complainant is aggrieved by the rejection of his claim by OP-3 on the ground that the claim does not meet eligibility criteria.
19. Firstly,deciding upon the preliminary objection taken by OP-1 to OP-3,with respect to non-joinder of  M/s.New India Assurance Company Ltd. is concerned,  a look is to be made at Ex.CW-1/3 (email dated 17/01/2015) confirming the insurance issued by OP-3. It neither bears the details of the insurer nor contains terms and conditions.  Even Ex.RW/3/1 (Job card) bears; for any query please contact Syska Gadget Secure Help line No.-02030402500. Thus, it is amply clear that in the event of any claim, the complainant was supposed to contact OP-3, who would further process it. Name of M/s New India Assurance does not appear in these documents. Further, the complainant has filed claim alongwith necessary documents with OP-3. When the complainant has no knowledge of this fact, it cannot be expected from him to implead M/s New India Assurance as a party.
20. Rejection of claim by merely stating that the claim does not meet eligibility criteria is also very cryptic and non-speaking.  The complainant has stated that the insured handset was stolen from his residence on 19/06/2015.He has been consistent in his statement dated 26/06/2015; claim form for theft claim (Ex.CW-1/5) and FIR dated 19/06/2015 (Ex.CW-1/4).
21. If we look at Ex.RW-3/4, Syska Gadget Secure Job Card, which has been relied upon by the OPs, it bears the description of incident as under:-
“Customer was travelling by metro train and he kept his handset in his pant pocket  and there was crowed due to someone stolen his handset from his pocket and customer unaware.”
 
22. It is pertinent to note that the said jobcard bears “CUSTOMER” .Complainant will not address himself as a ‘Customer’. It implies that it has not been filled by the complainant at the same time it does not bear the signature of the complainant indicating that the jobcard has been filled by someone on behalf of OP-3. Therefore, it cannot be held that the said statement of the handset being stolen from the pocket of the complainant was given by the complainant himself.
23. OP has not placed on record any document to show that the terms and conditions were supplied to the complainant. It is settled principle of law that terms and condition of the policy, if not shared with the complainant, they are not binding on the complainant.  In the instant case OP-3 has failed to prove that the terms and conditions have shared with the complainant.  
24. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we hold that OP-3 has rejected the claim of the complainant without any basis.  Rejection of the claim on baseless ground amounts to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.  Hence, we direct OP-3 to pay:
(a) Rs.52,500/- being the cost of the insured phone.
(b) Interest @7% p.a. on Rs.52,500/- from the date of filing the present complaint (25/01/2018) till realization.
(c) Pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, inclusive of litigation expenses.
25. The order be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order, in case of non-compliance the complainant shall be entitled to interest @9% p.a. on               Rs. 67,500/- (52,500/-+15,000/-)  from the date of order till realization.
Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.
 
     (Harpreet Kaur Charya)                                                     (Ashwani Kumar Mehta)
               Member                                                                                 Member  
                  
                      
 
                                                     (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)
                                                                  President

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.