Punjab

Moga

CC/15/97

Charanjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Gupta Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ajit Verma

12 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                      C.C. No. 97 of 2015

                                                              Instituted on: 9.12.2015

                                                  Decided on: 12.04.2016

 

Charanjit Singh son of Kulwant Singh, resident of House no.1518/6, Ram Ganj Road Moga, District Moga.

                                                                                                                                       ……….   Complainant 

Versus

 

1. M/s Gupta Communication, Main Bazar, Near Partap Road, Moga, District Moga.

 

2. M/s Smart App Shield, App Shield Solutions India Private Ltd. 894, Street no.7, Krishna Nagar, Khanna-141401 (Pb.)

 

3. New India Insurance Company, Millar Ganj Branch, Ludhiana.

 

                                                                                                                                             ………. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

Coram:      Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

Present:      Sh. Ajit Verma, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Opposite parties no.1 & 2 exparte.

                   Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Advocate Cl. for opposite party no.3.

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal, President)

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against M/s Gupta Communication, Main Bazar, Near Partap Road, Moga, District Moga and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) for directing them to pay the amount of insurance policy bearing no.40089, valid for the period 14.10.2014 to 13.10.2015 in regard to the new Samsung Note-3 Mobile phone (IMEI no.3515400905015) to the complainant and to pay the claim amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in services. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and mental & physical harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper also be granted.

2.                 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant purchased a Samsung Note-3 Mobile phone, IMEI no.351540060905015 from opposite party no.1 i.e. M/s Gupta Communication worth Rs.40,000/- in cash, vide counter invoice no.1637. Opposite party no.2 i.e. M/s Smart App Shield having counter in the premises of opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.1 is providing insurance services of the mobile phones, through  opposite party no.2 and told the complainant to get his mobile phone insured from opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.2 assured the complainant that their company has tie-up the business with opposite party no.3 i.e. New India Insurance Company and opposite party no.2 also assured that they will definitely provide all types of insurance including theft etc. On the assurance of opposite party no.2, complainant got his mobile phone insured from opposite party no.2 vide policy no.40089 of New India Insurance Company valid from 14.10.2014 to 13.10.2015 and complainant deposited the amount of insurance policy with the employee of the company as per terms and conditions of the policy. During the abovesiad period of insurance on 29.10.2014, the mobile phone of the complainant was snatched/stolen by unknown motorcyclists in the way, when complainant was going from his house to shop situated at Sarafa Bazar, Near to Ahata Badan Singh, District Moga. Complainant also got registered FIR no.183 dated 27.7.2014 u/s 356 of IPC against un-known persons with the Police Station City South Moga, District Moga. Thereafter, complainant visited opposite parties no.1 & 2 and informed about the said incident and also showed the copy of FIR, but opposite party no.2 told the complainant after consulting with higher officials of the company, they will sanction the insurance amount. Thereafter, complainant again visited 3-4 times to opposite parties no.1 & 2, but no sufficient reply was given to the complainant. Complainant also visited opposite party no.3, but to no effect. Complainant also served a legal notice, through registered post, through his counsel. But all in vain. Due to abovesaid act and conduct of the opposite parties suffered mental tension, agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties no.1 & 2, despite due service. As such, opposite parties no.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte. However, opposite party no.3 appeared through his counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has got no locus-standi; no deficiency in service has been attributed to the answering opposite party; the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous; complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint. Moreover, lengthy examination-in-chief and cross examination of the parties/witnesses are required in the complaint. So, the present complaint is required to be decided by the Civil Court, as such, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the complaint; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material and patent facts from this Forum. It has been further submitted that answering opposite party has not issued any such policy from its Branch Offices at G.T.Road, Moga or Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. Further submitted that notice dated 29.09.2015 issued by complainant to the answering opposite party was duly replied, through its counsel vide registered post dated 16.10.2015 and vide said notice it was mentioned that the said notice is absolutely false and frivolous. The policy no.40089 does not pertain to Divisional Office, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., G.T.Road, Moga, as the same has not been issued by it. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any claim or compensation from the answering opposite party. On merits, the contents of all other paras of the complaint have been denied.

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant Charanjit Singh tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-11 and closed the evidence. 

5.             In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. R.M. Bhatnagar Manager Ex.OP-3/1 and copies of documents Ex. OP-3/2 and Ex. OP-3/3 and closed the evidence.

6.              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.              Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that on 14.10.2014, the complainant purchased a new mobile hand set from OP-1 worth Rs.40,000/- and pay this amount in cash. OP-1 issued bill regarding it. The copy of the bill is Ex C-2. OP-2 had counter in the shop of OP-1, OP-1 & 2 told that they provide insurance service of the mobile phone and told to complainant for purchase of  insurance policy of new mobile phone, they also told to complainant that they had tie up with OP-3 i.e. New India Assurance Co. and they promised complainant, they will provide all type of insurance for the mobile phone from any type of defect breakage and theft etc. and in that case the complainant would be entitled for full compensation of his mobile phone, on the assurance of OPs complainant purchased insurance policy of the OPs, OP-1 & 2 issued insurance policy no. 40089 of insurance company OP-3 which was valid from 14.10.2014 to 13.10.2015  to complainant. The complainant paid the insurance charges to OP-1 & 2 that on 29.10.2014 when complainant was going from his home to shop, some unknown person snatched/stolen the above said phone from the complainant. The complainant lodged FIR regarding this incident with police. Copies of the insurance policy is Ex C-3 to C-5. Copy of the FIR is Ex C-6, the complainant visited the office of OP-1 & 2 at the shop of OP-1 and informed them regarding the incident and also gave them copy of FIR and insurance policy. The employees of OP-2 told to the complainant that they will sent the matter with their higher officials who will sanction the insurance claim of the complainant. Complainant visited many times the office of the OPs but they did not give any satisfactory reply to him. He also visited the office of OP-3 but to no effect. OPs linger on the matter on one pretext or the others. The complainant also served a registered notice to Ops requesting them to pay his insurance claim. The copy of the legal notice is Ex C-8. The complainant is entitled for the insurance claim of his mobile phone as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and by not paying his claim by Ops, the complainant suffered great mental tension agony and financial loss. These acts of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. He prayed that the OPs may be ordered to pay the insurance claim of the mobile phone along with compensation and litigation expenses. 

8.                To controvert the arguments of the complainant, the Counsel for the OP-3 submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has got no locus-standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. He is not consumer of OP-3 and there is no deficiency in service on their part. The complainant filed the false and frivolous complaint against OP-3. The OP-3 has no relation with OP-1, 2 and complainant. The alleged insurance policy not issued by OP-3. The OP-3 is insurance company registered under Indian Companies Act and a Government of India undertaking, the OP-3 has no tie up with OP-1 & 2, they are nothing to do with the business of OP-1 & 2, they never issued the alleged insurance policy. OP-3 is not bound by any false assurances if given by OP-1 & 2 to the complainant, as OP-3 never issued the alleged insurance policy, so they are not liable to pay any claim or compensation to the complainant. The complainant sent a notice to OP-3 earlier which was duly replied by them stating all the facts. The copy of the reply of the notice is Ex OP-3/2. Even complainant failed to produce the copy of the insurance policy issued by the OP-3. Complainant filed this false and frivolous complaint against OPs and dragged into unnecessarily litigation. The complaint against OP-3 may be dismissed with cost.

9.                We have heard the arguments of both the parties and also gone through the pleadings and evidence led by both the parties. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone from OP-1 and at that time OP-1 & 2 told him to get insurance of his mobile phone, they told him that they have tie up with OP-3. In event of any damage or theft of the phone, they will pay him full insurance claim for his mobile phone and at their pursuance, he purchased insurance policy from them, his mobile was stolen and he approached to OPs for the insurance claim but they did not pay the insurance claim to him. OP-1 & 2 did not appear before this Forum despite notice and proceeded against exparte. OP-3 appeared and argued that they never issued alleged insurance policy in favour of complainant. They have no tie up with OP-1 & 2, they have no concern with the business of OP-1 & 2 and are not liable to pay insurance claim to the complainant.

10.              To prove his case, complainant produced copy of the bill dated 14.10.2014 as Ex. C-2 and copies of insurance certificate issued by OP-1 & 2 as Ex C-3 to C-5 in which they admitted regarding receipt of insurance amount. On Ex C-3 there is a logo of OP-3 is printed but except this there is no evidence on the file to prove the relation of OP-3 with OP-1 & 2 or with alleged insurance policy issued by OP-1 & 2. OP-3 is an insurance company incorporated under Indian Companies Act and Government of India undertaking they have specifically denied that they have no tie up or any other concern with business of OP-1 & 2 and they never issued any alleged insurance policy. Complainant failed to prove any evidence against this stand of OP-3, only by printing the logo of OP-3 on their card by OP-1 & 2, it cannot held that OP-3 has any concern with OP-1 & 2 or insurance policy, in these circumstances we cannot hold that OP-3 is liable to pay the insurance claim to complainant, however the OP-1 & 2 who issued the alleged insurance policy to the complainant and received insurance charges and gave assurance that they made goods loss in event of the mobile of the complainant got damage or stolen. Therefore liable to pay insurance claim of the complainant and by not paying the insurance amount to the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP-1 & 2.

11.              In the light of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed. The OP-1 & 2 is ordered to pay the price of mobile phone i.e. Rs.40,000/- as insurance claim to him along with interest @ 9% P.A from 29.10.2014 i.e. from the date of loss till final realization. OP-1 & 2 are also burdened to pay Rs 4,000/- (Four thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and harassment faced by complainant and Rs.2000/- (Two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. OP-1 & 2 are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint against OP-3 stand dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 12.04.2016

 

 

                                    (Bupinder Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                        Member                                  President