Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/612/2015

Jitender Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Legal Manager, Bajaj Allianz Genernal Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Gourave Bhayyia Gilohtra Adv.

31 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	612 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	21.10.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	31.12.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Jitender Kumar, resident of H.No.226, Sector 41, Chandigarh 160036

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Legal Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., G.E. Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, 1 Pune 4111006

 

2]  Jain Electronics, SCO No.86, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.

 

3]  Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech. Square, Gold Course road, Gurgaon, Sector 43, Gurgaon.

 

….. Opposite Parties  

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Complainant in person.

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Puneet Tuli, Adv. for Opposite   Party No.3 (OPs exparte)

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant purchased a Samsung Mobile Phone worth Rs.18,000/- from Jain Electronics on 18.7.2015 bearing Invoice No.11344, dated 18.7.2015, having one year warranty and it has been insured from Bajaj Allianz Company in case of any breakdown, loss, theft and damage.  That the complainant purchased the policy vide extended warranty Kit No.541777 dated 18.7.2015.  It is averred that the said mobile phone of the complainant suddenly damaged, resultantly the mobile phone suffered a total loss. The complainant approached the Samsung Service Centre on 01.09.2015, but they refused to accept the phone, so the complainant approached the Bajaj Allianz Co. for getting the claim under insurance on account of loss/damage to the phone.  However, the Samsung Company and Bajaj Allianz have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant till date.  Hence, this compliant has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 did not put in appearance despite being served with notices through registered post, thus raising presumption under Sub-clause (2) of Regulation 10 of The Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, were proceeded exparte vide order dated 03.12.2015.

 

3]       Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]       The complainant, at the time of arguments, submitted that the complainant purchased a Samsung Mobile Phone worth Rs.18,000/- from Jain Electronics on 18.7.2015 having one year warranty and the same was insured from Bajaj Allianz Company in respect of any breakdown, loss, theft and damage.  It is argued that the complainant purchased the policy vide extended warranty Kit No.541777 dated 18.7.2015.  It is also argued that the said mobile phone suddenly damaged, as a result, it suffered total loss. It is further argued that the complainant approached the Samsung Service Centre on 01.09.2015, but they refused to accept the phone, therefore, the complainant approached the Bajaj Allianz Co. for getting the claim under insurance on account of loss/damage to the phone, but it too refused to redress his grievance. In support of his claim, the complainant placed on record the copy of invoice, dated 18.7.2015, copy of Handset Inspection From and copy of Extended Warranty: copy of Proposal Form of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and also Extended Warranty Policy Document.

        

5]      The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 though being duly served with notice, failed to put in appearance on 03.12.2015, thus raising presumption under Sub-clause (2) of Regulation 10 of The Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, was proceeded exparte vide order dated 03.12.2015. The Opposite Parties having failed to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, all the averments of the complainant go unrebutted. The averments/ allegations of the complainant are also supported by duly sworn affidavit of the complainant.

 

6]      The grievance qua mobile in question, being duly covered under the Extended Warranty of two years, should have been redressed at the end of OPs, but the failure on their part forced the complainant to approach this Forum to initiate proceedings against the OPs; who even after due service of the notices by this Forum, not cared to appear and even failed to contradict the allegations levelled by the complainant.  This only shows that the Opposite Parties either admitted the allegations made by the complainant or they have nothing to say in their defence. Since, the relief claimed by the complainant is only against Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company, therefore, we deem it fit that the complaint deserves to be allowed against Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company.

 

7]       In view of the above observations, we allow the present complaint against Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company and dismiss it qua OPs No.2 & 3. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.18,000/-, being the cost of the insured mobile on account of its total damage, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay the said amount of Rs.18,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid. There is no order as to cost and compensation, being not prayed for. 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

31^st December, 2015                                                                                                                                                     sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

          Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-  

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.612 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 31st day of December, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member