DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.198/2016
Rakesh Kakar
S/o Sh. D.L. Kakar
R/o B-4/81, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029 ….Complainant
Versus
The Mobile Store
Shop No.2, Main Market,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017
Through Manager/Proprietor
1A. Nil 25-A Ground Floor, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi
Xisomi Exclusive-Malviya Nagar
Through- Manager
2. The National Insurance Company Ltd.
E-2/5 FF, ND-17,
Malviya Nagar, Main Market,
New Delhi-110017 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 05.07.2016
Date of Order : 22.11.2021
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
Order
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone of Redmi brand from the shop of OP No 1 i.e. Mobile Store on 13.05.2015, the copy of the invoice is annexed as Ex./CW-1/A. The complainant has also impleaded the authorised service centre as a party and National Insurance Co. as OP No.2.
The contention of the complainant is that at the time of the purchase of mobile phone OP No. 1 told him that they had a tie up with National Insurance Company limited i.e. OP No.2 and in case the complainant purchased the insurance policy from them then he would be covered under the insurance policy including accidental damage, water/liquid damage etc. That further OP No. 1 assured that in case of any unfortunate damage the complainant would get the full bill amount and also in case the mobile phone is not in a repairable position through OP No.1. The complainant was convinced with assurances and promises given by OP No.1 and purchased the insurance policy bearing no. 260200/46/14/95 00000078 by paying ₹56 as premium amount inclusive of service tax. The policy was valid from 13. 05. 15 to 12. 05.16, the copy of the insurance policy is Ex./CW-1/B. The Complainant further states that in the first week of January 2016 the said mobile phones slipped from his hands and stopped working. The complainant visited the OP No.1 on 23.01.2016 for having his mobile phone repaired wherein a job sheet no. JS160 123 00467 dated 23.01.16 was created and ₹300 was charged as service charges. The complainant was informed that the repair will be a chargeable one and ₹10000 would be incurred as repair charges. The complainant then requested the OP No.1 to inform OP No.2 i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd regarding the repair of the bill but he was categorically told that the OP No.1 is not obliged to do so and that he should forward his own claim to OP No.2.
Reply was filed by OP No.1 and it was stated that no prima facie case has been made out against the OP No.1 as they are the retailer and not the manufacturer. The OP No.1 has further denied that they are the authorised broker of OP 2 and that they are not the ones who had issued the policy to the complainant. They have further contended that cause of action is primarily against OP No.2 which is National Insurance Company. They have also taken the plea that in case of any accidental damage, the complainant had to inform Edelweiss hub on web portal and since the complainant had failed to register his claim, it is his negligence.
In their reply the authorised service centre of the OP have stated that most of the contents of the complaint do not relate to them and rest, it is stated are a matter of record.
In their reply OP No. 2 i.e. National Insurance Company have primarily stated that the insurer should have taken proper and necessary steps to save or recover the insured property and minimise the loss. It is further stated that there was no immediate intimation of loss to the insurer without any delay and these duties cannot be diluted. It is further stated that the insured has tried to defraud the company by making a false and frivolous story of theft to grab the claim amount. Further at the time of hearing of oral arguments the counsel for the insurance company had stated that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant as he has not informed the insurance company of any claim.
All the parties have filed their evidences as well as written arguments. As has been stated earlier the factum of purchase of the mobile as well as purchase of insurance policy is not in dispute being admitted by all the parties. It is not in doubt that the mobile of the complainant had fallen and needed repair. The policy purchased by the complainant covered accidental damage which included fire and allied perils riot malicious damage act of God perils and water/ liquid damage as provided for in Ex./CW-1/B.
This Commission is of the view that OP No.1 had a tie up with OP No. 2 National Insurance Company as is evident from Ex/CW-1/B as both the names appear on the certificate granted to the complainant. There is no denial that there was an insurance in favour of the complainant. As far as intimation to the insurance company is concerned, the intimation was given to OP No.1 and 2 and also legal notices exhibited as Ex/CW-1/E were issued by the complainant and receipts thereof are Ex/CW-1/F and Ex/CW-1/G and which are not denied by any of the parties. The reply of the insurance company has been filed mechanically which states that ground of theft has been made out by the complainant which evidently, is not the case of the complainant.
The claim of the complainant is allowed. Since the amount of repair is equivalent to the amount that has been insured, OP No.2 i.e. National Insurance Co. is directed to pay the insured amount to the complainant. OP No.1 i.e Mobile Store is directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- for the harassment and mental agony caused to him on account of his misrepresentation given to the complainant on which the complainant has relied and acted.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties.
