O R D E R
(By Sri.Ganesh Jadhav, President)
1. This consumer case is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased Samsung cell phone bearing Model No. 7722 from the mobile store shop near to S.R. Mallaiah complex Nizamabad on 25-02-2012 for Rs. 10,284/-. The said cell phone was having Insurance coverage from 01-03-2012. The insurance amount of Rs. 299/- was also paid by complainant. Unfortunately the complainant has lost the said cell phone in vegetable market while purchasing vegetables at about 10.00am on 09-09-2012. The complainant informed this fact to Mr. Jayanth Das i.e Opposite Party who asked the complainant to send all original documents to his office. Accordingly the complainant has sent the original documents through Profession Courier service on 04-10-2012. The complainant again sent required documents on 18-09-2012 through courier service worth Rs. 250/- with cell phone box etc and again third time after the complainant has sent the notarized documents dt. 03-10-2012 worth of Rs. 200/- on 21-11-2012 he was asked by said Jayanth Das to send the notary on 100/- rupees stamp paper worth of Rs. 250/-. The said Jayanth Das harassed the complainant by abusing him in filthy language by using his phone No. 09560571493 and Fax No. 01145636979. Therefore it is prayed to take action against Opposite Party for replacing the said cell phone with new one or refund its price.
3. The Opposite party has sent counter dated 27-09-2013 which was received by this office on 01-10-2013 through the Registered post. Briefly it is stated that the claim of complainant’s mobile phone bearing No. IMEI 355317044155876 is settled by the United India Insurance Company Ltd., for an amount of Rs. 4628/- ( Rupees four thousand six hundred and twenty eight only). The said amount is paid towards full and final settlement of the claim as per the policy terms and conditions of United India Insurance that is opted by complainant. Under the policy terms and conditions no sentimental or consequential loss is payable by the Insurance company. The payment details are cheque No. 969163 date 26-09-2013 amount Rs. 4628/-( Rupees four thousand six hundred twenty eight only) Bank: HDFC Bank, Dwaraka New Delhi. The cheque was sent to the complainant through Speed Post via ARD000482081 IN dt. 26-09-2013. The photo copy of said cheque and Speed Post receipt are enclosed herewith. Further stated that the Opposite party is not the insurer for the said cell phone. The liability to pay the claimed amount, if any is that of the insurance company but not the Opposite party. Hence the present Opposite party may be deleted from the array of the parties.
4. During enquiry, the complainant has not adduced evidence on his behalf inspite of sufficient and reasonable time granted. Hence the right of adducing evidence on behalf of complainant is forfeited on 03-07-2014. The Opposite party also not adduced his evidence and the evidence on behalf of Opposite party is closed on 15-10-2014.
5. As per material available on record, the points for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in Service on the part of opposite party in transaction of cell phone insurance coverage?
- To what Relief?
6. POINT NO. 1 & 2 :-
The case of complainant is that he purchased Samsung Cell phone bearing Model No. 7722 on 25-02-2012 for Rs.10,284/-. The said cell phone was having Insurance coverage from 01-03-2012 onwards. Unfortunately the complainant has lost the said cell phone on 09-09-2012 at 10.00am in the vegetable market while he was purchasing vegetables. The complainant made claim against Opposite party under the Insurance policy. Instead of settling the claim the Opposite Party harassing the complainant.
The case of Opposite party is that the claim of complainant’s cell phone is settled by the United India Insurance company Ltd for an amount of Rs. 4,628/-. The amount of Rs. 4,628/- is paid through cheque bearing No. 969163 dated 26-09-2013 to the complainant as per the terms & conditions of the policy. The said cheque was sent to the complainant through speed post on 26-09-2013. The Opposite party is not responsible for the liability to pay the claimed amount if any. The United India Insurance Company Ltd who is a insurer to the cell phone of complainant is only responsible for liability if any. The Opposite party be deleted from the array of parties in the complaint.
As per pleadings of both the complainant and Opposite party, there is no dispute that the complainant has purchased Samsung cell phone bearing model No.7722 on 25-02-2012 and it has insurance coverage from the United India Insurance company Ltd from 01-03-2012 onwards. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has lost his said cell phone on 09-09-2012.
The dispute is only with regard to the settlement of claim under the policy and with regard to impleading the United India Insurance company Ltd as a necessary party to the proceedings.
The complaint was filed by complainant inperson on 11-09-2013. The Opposite party has sent counter dated 27-09-2013 through registered post which is received on 01-10-2013. The case was coming from 25-10-2013 for adducing evidence on behalf of complainant till the date on 03-07-2014 from time to time. But the complainant failed to adduce evidence on his behalf inspite of sufficient and reasonable time granted. Therefore this forum deemed it that there is no evidence to be adduced on behalf of the complainant and the right of adducing evidence by the complainant is forfeited on 03-07-2014. Though the case was posted from 07-08-2014 till the date on 15-10-2014 from time to time for adducing evidence on behalf of Opposite party, the Opposite party being called absent and no representation and no evidence adduced on his behalf, the evidence on behalf of Opposite party is closed on 15-10-2014.
Having considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in absence of the evidence on behalf of the complainant and Opposite Party we are of the considered opinion that complainant had failed to discharge his burden to prove his case against the Opposite Party by way of adducing any kind of evidence on his behalf. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly point Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the complainant.
7. IN THE RESULT, the complaint is “ DISMISSED”. Without costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Forum on this the 28th day of October 2014.
