Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/137

HANS RAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S DABRA COMMUNICATION - Opp.Party(s)

ARMAAN DEEP SINGH VIRDI

11 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         137

Date of Institution :    24.04.2017

Date of Decision :      11.07.2017

 

Hans Raj  s/o Buggar Singh r/o House No.222-B, Street No.3, Hira Singh Nagar, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Dabra Communications, Near New Bus Stand, Opposite Dhodha Sweets, Kotkapura through its Proprietor/Manager/authorised signatory.
2. Apps Daily, Shop no. 2, D Wing, Shanti Shopping Centre, Mira Road, East, Near Railway Station, Mumbai, Maharashtra-401107 through its Manager

......Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh A S Virdi, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 OPs Exparte,

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to clear the claim  no. ATN-150317-197866950 and to pay Rs.50,000/-as original cost of mobile and for further directing Ops to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2                                      Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a mobile phone make I Phone 6S IMEI No. 355765071492267 colour gold 16GB from OP-1 vide bill dated 28.05.2016 on cash payment of Rs.50,000/- and got insured the same from OP-2 through OP-1 vide receipt dated 1.06.2016 and paid one time premium of RS.4,499/-. At the time of insurance, OP-1 assured complainant against all kinds of risks of loss including damage, theft etc. It is submitted that on 13.03.2017, while going to market, some unidentified persons snatched the mobile from the hands of complainant and ran away, complainant immediately reported the matter to Police Station City Kotkapura and got recorded DDR no. 42 dated 13.03.2017 to this effect and thereafter FIR No. 29 dated 22.02.2017 was also registered by Police to this effect. Complainant also gave due intimation regarding incident to OPs and lodged claim no. ATN-150317-197866950 with OPs. Complainant also fulfilled all the requisite formalities as per directions of OPs to obtain his genuine claim, but till date, OPs have neither cleared the claim nor have given any replacement for mobile. Complainant made many requests to OPs regarding mobile in question but OPs did not do the needful and all his efforts to get his genuine claim bore no fruit and complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to pay compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 2.05.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                              Notice issued to OP-1 through RC AD did not receive back and presumed to be served. Notice sent to OP-2 received back with report of Postal Authorities as ‘Unclaimed'. Case was called out several times since morning, but despite several calls, when no body made presence in the Forum on behalf of OPs either in person or through counsel, then, vide order dated 16.06.2017, OPs were proceeded against exparte.

5                                         Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 9 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                      As there is no rebuttal from OPs side, therefore, we have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record.

 7                                      The ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased a mobile phone make I Phone 6S from OP-1 vide bill dated 28.05.2016 for Rs.50,000/- and got insured the same from OP-2 through OP-1 vide receipt dated 1.06.2016 and paid one time premium of Rs.4,499/-. At the time of insurance, OP-1 assured complainant against all kinds of risks of loss including damage, theft etc. It is submitted that on 13.03.2017, while going to market, some unidentified persons snatched the mobile from the hands of complainant and ran away, complainant immediately reported the matter to Police Station City Kotkapura and got recorded DDR no. 42 dated 13.03.2017 and thereafter FIR No. 29 dated 22.02.2017 to this effect and also gave due intimation regarding incident to OPs and lodged claim no. ATN-150317-197866950 with OPs. Complainant fulfilled all the requisite formalities as per directions of OPs to obtain his genuine claim, but till date, OPs have neither cleared the claim nor have given any replacement for mobile. Repeated requests made by complainant to do the needful bore no fruit, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief.

8                                        Complainant has relied upon documents Ex C-4, which is copy of bill that proves that complainant is the consumer of OPs, Ex C-5 is the document showing the fact that complainant got insured his phone from OPs and also paid premium worth Rs.4,499/-to OPs. Ex C-2 and Ex C-3 is the copy of DDR and FIR dated 13.03.2017 and 22.02.2017 respectively prove the pleadings of complainant. Ex C-7 is the copy of e mail issued by OPs requiring the complainant to complete the requisite formalities.  Through Ex C-1, complainant has reiterated his grievance.

9                                    From the careful perusal of record and evidence adduced by complainant, it is observed that case of complainant is that he purchased a phone worth Rs.50,000/-from OP-1 and got insured the same from OP-2 and said mobile phone was stolen by someone. DDR and FIR to this effect were also registered and OP-2 was also duly intimated by complainant, who registered the claim of complainant and gave claim number. Grievance of complainant is that despite completing all the requisite formalities, Ops have not cleared the claim of complainant which caused harassment and mental tension to complainant. On the contrary, there is nothing on record on the part of OPs.

10                                           From the above discussion and keeping in view the circumstances of the case, it is made out that mobile in question is stolen within the subsistence of insurance period and within this period, OP-2 is liable to compensate the loss occurred to complainant. Now, the OP-2 can not escape from their liability to compensate the loss regarding mobile phone in question. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby accepted against OP-2. OP-2 is hereby directed to pay Rs.50,000/- i.e cost of mobile phone as insurance value. OP-2 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. Complaint against OP-1 stands dismissed. Compliance of the order be made in prescribed time failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 11.07.2017                                

Member                     President

          (P Singla)                 (Ajit Aggarwal)