Haryana

Sonipat

CC/258/2015

Sandeeo S/o Sat Narain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobile Shoppe - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Gautam

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

Complaint No.258 of 2015                             Instituted on:05.08.2015

                                Date of order:25.02.2016

Sandeep Kumar son of Sat Narain r/o village Sikandarpur Majra, Distt. Sonepat.

                                      ..Complainant.

                   Versus

1.Mobile Shoppe Shop no.44, Opp. Durga Cable, Geeta Bhawan Chowk Sonepat through its Prop.

2.New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office Subhash Chowk Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

                                           ..Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH-PRESIDENT.

PRABHA DEVI-MEMBER.

D.V. RATHI-MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Sanjay Gautam, Adv. for complainant.

           Respondent no.1 ex-parte.

           Sh. HC Jain, Adv. for respondent no.2.

O R D E R

          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the respondent alleging therein that he has purchased mobile Sony Experia Z-2 from respondent no.1 on 21.1.2015 for Rs.32600/- and the same was got insured vide policy no.20150310-T178.  On 7.3.2015 unfortunately,  the said mobile was stolen by some unknown person and he got registered the complaint vide NCR No.145/15 dated 9.3.2015.  The complainant has completed all the formalities, but on 9.7.2015, the respondent no.2 has rejected the claim of the complainant by saying that there is delay in claim intimation. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In the present case, only the respondent no.2 has appeared through his respective counsel, whereas respondent no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.11.2015.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that no claim has ever been lodged with them on account of the alleged occurrence of theft of mobile phone of the complainant. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The complainant has suppressed the material facts. The correct facts are that one insurance policy no.31130146142400000001 was issued by Karol Bagh Branch office of New India Ass. Co. Ltd to Mobile Dr Services LLP who is bundling insurance for its free app and selling the app. in the name of Mobile Dr to its clients.  This is the case of misplacement of mobile and misplacement is not covered under the insurance policy and thus, the respondent no.2 has rightly rejected the claim of the complainant.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire relevant record placed on the case file very carefully.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that this is the case of misplacement of mobile and misplacement is not covered under the insurance policy and thus, the respondent no.2 has rightly rejected the claim of the complainant.

          The perusal of the document JN-C/7 shows that the complainant has paid Rs.1775/- regarding insurance of the mobile set to the respondent no.1.  The complainant has also placed on record JN-C/2 i.e. bill dated 21.1.2015 vide which the complainant has purchased the mobile set from the respondent no.1 for Rs.32600/-.  The document JN-C/3 shows that the mobile set of the complainant was stolen on 7.3.2015 and DDR was lodged on 9.3.2015.   The complainant has also placed on record the copy of some e-mail sent to Mobile Dr Claims

          In the present case, mobile set of the complainant was stolen on 7.3.2015 and he lodged the DDR on 9.3.2015 and the complainant submitted the mobile handset theft claim form on 10.3.2015 with the respondent no.2.

          In our view, in the present case, there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1, because he received the premium of Rs.1775/- from the complainant, but he has not sent the said amount for insurance of the mobile set of the complainant to the insurance company. So, in our view, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and it is the respondent no.1 who is liable to compensate the complainant with regard to loss of mobile set. 

          The complainant has purchased the mobile set from respondent no.1 on 21.1.2015 for Rs.32600/- and it has lost on 7.3.2015.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to deduct Rs.3260/- as depreciated amount from Rs.32600/- and to make the balance payment of Rs.29340/- (Rs.32600 – 3260 = Rs.29340/-) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization and further to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rs.one thousand) under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1 and stands dismissed qua respondent no.2 since we find no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

              File be consigned after due compliance.

(Prabha Wati) (D.V.Rathi)           (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF,          President, DCDRF

Sonepat.      Sonepat.                Sonepat.

Announced 25.02.2016