Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 07
Instituted on : 05.01.2016.
Decided on : 29.04.2016.
Hardeep s/o Sh. Ishwar Singh, resident of village-Bahu Akbarur, Tehsil and District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Gobind Enterprises, Gohana Adda, Rohtak-124001(through its Proprietor).
- DNA Antivirus & Insurance (Main Office) Merlin Infinite, 10th Floor, Plot No.51, Block DN, Sector-V of Bidhannagar in the District of North 24-Parganas within Police station Electronics Complex Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091, West Bengal, India(Through its Proprietor/Authorised Person)
- DNA Antivirus & Insurance(Branch Office) 53 Anandapally Jadavpur, Kolkata-700032,(Through its Proprietor/Authorised Person).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a mobile set Make LAVA ICON phone bearing IMEI No.911436750217204 and 911436750217212 from the opposite party no.1 vide bill No.564 dated 13.07.2015 for an amount of Rs.11950/-. It is averred that opposite party no.1 is retailer and opposite party no.2 & 3 are insurer of the above said mobile phone. It is averred that the above said mobile handset was stolen on 04.09.2015 and complainant lodged a complaint in police on the same day. The police tried to trace out the mobile but could not succeed. It is averred that complainant informed the opposite party immediately after the theft of mobile set and submitted all documents as desired by opposite party no.1. But till today his claim has not been settled by the opposite party. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite parties did not appear despite service upon opposite party no.1 through process server and upon opposite party no.2 & 3 through registered post and as such opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.02.2016 of this Forum.
3. Complainant led evidence in support of his case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 13.07.2015 for a sum of Rs.11950/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C1. It is also not disputed that as per policy Ex.C5 the mobile having IMEI No. 911436750217204 and 911436750217212 was insured with the opposite party no.2 & 3. It is also not disputed that the mobile of the complainant had been stolen and as per complainant Ex.C6 the complainant made a complaint with the police on 04.09.2015 but the same could not be traced out by the police. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, he also intimated the opposite parties on the same day about the theft of his mobile set but the opposite parties have not paid any claim amount to the complainant despite his repeated requests. On the other hand it is also on record that the opposite parties have neither appeared nor filed any evidence to rebut the version taken by the complainant in his complaint and were proceeded against exparte and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter. Therefore all the versions put forth by the complainant regarding theft of his mobile set and information to the police as well as to the opposite parties stands proved. As such opposite party no. 2 & 3 are liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the opposite party no.2 & 3 shall pay the price of mobile set i.e Rs.11950/-(Rupees eleven thousand nine hundred fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.01.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
29.04.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
