Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/191/2019

Ravi Jangra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.K Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Chandan Royal

05 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.                      

Complaint No.191 of 2019.

Date of Instt.:14.05.2019.

Date of Decision: 05.12.2023.

Ravi Jangra son of Bhoop Singh resident of Hans Colony, Bhattu Road, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

...Complainant

     Versus

 

1.M.K.Mobiles, Palika Bazar, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

2.CPP Assistance Services Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, Wing A, Golf View Corporate Tower-A, Golf Course Road, Sector-42, Gurugram 122002, Haryana.

3.HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Office No.208, IInd Floor, Sewa Corporate Park, Mehroli, Gurgaon, Road, Gurugram-122001, Haryana through its Manager/Director.

 

..Opposite Parties.

CORAM:   Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.                                                            Dr.K.S.Nirania, Member                                                                  Smt.Harisha Mehta, Member

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                 Sh.Chandan Royal, Advocate for complainant.                                  Op No.1 exparte vide order dated 24.10.2019.                                      Sh.Rajender Goyal, Advocate for Op No.2.                                          Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.3.

ORDER

Dr.K.S.Nirania, MEMBER

1.                          Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile Samsung Galaxy A7 vide invoice No.T01115 Dt.05.11.2018 amounting to Rs.26,990/- from OP No.1; that the complainant got his mobile insured through Op No.1 by paying a sum of Rs.2574/- as premium; that after the purchase of policy, the complainant got a membership id No.IM2060449 having validity for the period from 05.11.2018 to 04.11.2019; that the mobile in question got lost on 23.02.2019 and regarding this an FIR was also registered; that the complainant submitted all the requisite documents with the Ops besides serving legal notice upon them with a request to pay the insured amount but to  no avail and in the end the claim of the complainant was denied on 05.04.2019. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C7.

2.                On notice, Op No.1 did not appear before this Commission despite service, therefore, Op No.1 was proceeded against exaprte vide order dated 08.07.2019.

3.                Op No.2 in its reply has submitted that it is not an insurance company and the role of the replying Op is limited to getting the mobile phone insured by an insurance company; that the mobile in question was insured with HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company but the same has not been arrayed party to the present complaint; that the complainant availed Fonasafe Classic T3 Plan but as per the exclusion Clause No.3 of the terms and conditions of the policy, the Theft/Burglary is not covered under policy; that as per the complainant the phone was stolen on 23.02.2019, therefore, the loss is not covered under the policy; that the complainant has violated the other clauses such as Clause 4 & 5 also because it was for the complainant to intimate about the incident within 24 hours; that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying Op. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                          Op No.3 in its reply has submitted that the present complaint has been filed by concealing the material facts from this Commission; that the claim is payable as per terms and conditions the loss of theft and burglary does not cover under the policy, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated; The requisite policy condition is reproduced as under:

Equipment incident; Accidental damage (including liquid damage) excluding theft or burglary of your equipment during the policy period.

                            

                                      3.Exclusions:

                                      1.War, invasion…………                                                                  2.Theft and burglary of equipment                                                     3.Acting.    

 

By denying all other allegations, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. The appearing Ops have tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, Annexure OP-1, Annexure OP2-A, Annexure OP3 documents Annexure RW3/A to Annexure RW3/4.

4.                We have heard oral final arguments from both sides. In our considered opinion, the same were almost repetitions of averments of pleadings of both sides on record.

5.                We have also perused the case file minutely in view of the rival submissions from both sides.

6.                Fact regarding purchasing of hand set from OP No.1 (Annexure C6) duly insured by OP No.3 is not disputed. The complainant has come with the plea that the mobile phone got lost during the subsistence of insurance period, which was valid for one year i.e. but the Ops did not indemnify the loss suffered by him.  Per contra, it has been argued by learned counsel for the appearing Ops that the claim of the complainant qua the loss of mobile is not covered under the policy, therefore, the claim was rightly rejected.

7.                In Annexure RW3/2 i.e. Portable Electronic Equipment insurance  at Sr.No.2 of Special Conditions, warranties and exclusion, it has been clearly mentioned that Theft and Burglary is excluded and the complainant has pleaded his case on the ground the phone got lost and regarding this police rapat (Annexure R5) was also lodged.  It is not the case of the complainant that the terms and conditions were not supplied to it at the time of getting the mobile phone insured.  In Annexure RW3/4 in the column of Exclusion, it has been mentioned that the company will not indemnify the insured in respect of loss, damage or liability attributable directly or indirectly to Acts of terrorism, loss or damage, cost or expenses of whatsoever nature directly or indirectly caused by resulting from or in connection with any action taken in controlling, preventing, suppressing or in any way of relating to such action taken in respect of any act of terrorism shall also be excluded, unless it is proved by the insured to the satisfaction of the company.   The policy in question was purchased by the complainant by his own sweet will and it is a general principle of law that the terms and conditions of document executed between the parties are applicable on both and the Commission cannot interfere in the same. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim of the complainant does not fall within the scope of coverage, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present compliant deserves dismissal.

8.                          Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice, on part of the Ops, so as to make any of them liable in this matter to any extent. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.  In the given circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of this Commission, for perusal of parties herein. Case file be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 05.12.2023

 

 

                                                                                               

      (K.S.Nirania)                     (Harisha Mehta)           (Rajbir Singh)                             Member                                  Member                                President