BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer complaint no. 256 of 2016.
Date of Institution: 27.9.2016.
Date of Decision: 20.9.2017
Rakesh Kumar son of Sh. Mani Ram, r/o village Gudiakhera, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Digital Computers & Communications, Jain Market Sadar Bazar, Near Subhash Chowk Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, through its Proprietor.
2. Apps Daily Solutions Pvt., D-3137 Oberoi Garden Estates, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400072 through its Prop/ Owner/ Managing Director.
3. Apps Daily, Chugh Telecom, Shop No.66, MC Market, Sirsa Distt. Sirsa.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI R.L.AHUJA……………………… PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT……………. ……MEMBER
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ….. MEMBER.
Present: Shri Ashok Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Shri H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite parties No.2 and 3 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that he had purchased a new mobile phone Oppo Neo 5 1201 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.7000/- vide bill No.2601 dated 1.3.2016. On the same day on the recommendation of op no.1, the complainant got insured the said mobile from op no.3 against the amount of Rs.799/- being the insurance charges, acknowledgment of which has been mentioned on the top of the bill of the mobile. The insurance period was for one year from the date of insurance. That on 4.8.2016, the complainant was coming to Sirsa from Nuh via train. At about 11.59 PM, when he after alighting from the train was coming towards the bus stand, Sirsa, in the meanwhile in court colony Sirsa four unknown persons caught hold him. They beaten up the complainant and snatched his purse containing relevant documents and Rs.4600/- in cash, one polythene containing matriculation certificate of the complainant and also snatched his aforesaid mobile. When they were trying to go away from the spot after looting the complainant, the complainant raised alarm and chased them upon which some police officials from Sadar Police Station came outside and arrested one of them and handed over his custody to the police of Bus stand police post. A case FIR No.572 dated 6.8.2016 under Section 379-A IPC was registered in police station City Sirsa against unknown persons. It is further averred that as the mobile of the complainant was still under the period of insurance, therefore, on 9.8.2016 vide intimation ID- ATN- 060816- 197749022, the complainant informed the ops No.2 and 3 about the aforesaid incident and requested to indemnify his claim under the insurance policy but on 24.8.2016 to the surprise of the complainant, the ops no.2 and 3 have repudiated the claim of the complainant and refused to indemnify the same on the pretext that the incident took place on 5.8.2016 whereas the FIR has been registered on 4.8.2016. As per the ops no.2 and 3, no FIR can be registered prior to the happening of any incident and in view of the same the claim of the complainant has been repudiated. That the repudiation of the aforesaid claim of the complainant by ops No.2 and 3 is totally unlawful and is against the terms of the policy because ops no.2 and 3 have committed error in repudiating the same. Actually, the incident was happened in the night of 4.8.2016 and the FIR has been registered on 6.8.2016 but the ops no.2 and 3 committed error in considering the dates regarding the occurrence and registration of FIR and only on the basis of the same they have wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op has never given any guarantee/assurance or warrantee of mobile set or any insurance plan to the complainant.
3. Opposite parties no.2 and 3 did not appear despite notice and therefore, ops no.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, bill Ex.C1, format of police complaint Ex.C2, copy of FIR Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit Ex.R1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his case has placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has testified all the contents so set out by him in his complaint. In support of his complaint, he has also placed on file bill of the mobile in question Ex.C1. The perusal of the bill Ex.C1 reveals that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 on 1.3.2016 for a sum of Rs.7000/-. On the top of this bill, the name of insurance company of the mobile is mentioned as apps daily and premium amount of Rs.799/- is also mentioned on this very bill. So, it is proved on record that complainant got insured his mobile in question from the insurance company i.e. opposite parties no.2 and 3 on the date of its purchase by paying an amount of Rs.799/- and office of the apps daily is situated in Sirsa i.e. op no.3. From the copy of FIR dated 6.8.2016 duly recorded in Police Station City Sirsa for commission of offence under Section 379 A IPC, it is proved on record that mobile in question of the complainant alongwith his other belongings was snatched by some unknown persons in the night of 4.8.2016 when he was going to his house from railway station, Sirsa as he came from Nuh to Sirsa. The remarks given by the representative of opposite parties no.2 and 3 with his signatures and date as 24.8.2016 on document Ex.C2 that “as per the company record, customer has mentioned the date on help, this case has happened on 5.8.2016 but FIR date is 4.8.2016, due to miss match of date case has been rejected as per company.” are not correct and is the result of misreading and inadvertence on the part of the representative of the company because the incident took place in the night of 4.8.2016 and not on 5.8.2016 and the FIR was registered on 6.8.2016 and not on 4.8.2016. So, the opposite parties no.2 and 3 have wrongly repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant. Moreover, the opposite parties no.2 and 3 have not substantiated their plea by appearing and leading any evidence rather they opted to be proceeded against exparte. The ops no.2 and 3 are liable to fully indemnify the complainant for the loss of his mobile in question which was purchased by him on 1.3.2016 and same was snatched on 4.8.2016. However, no liability of op no.1 is made out. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has also stated at bar that he does not press any relief against OP No.1. As such complaint against op no.1 stands dismissed as not pressed.
7. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint qua opposite parties no.2 and 3 and direct them to pay an amount of Rs.7000/- i.e. insurance amount of the mobile in question to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint till actual payment. Both the ops no.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:20.9.2017 Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
