Adv.for the complainant - P.R.Nag
Adv.for the O.P - Self
Date of filing of the case –20.05.2016
Date of order - 15.03.2017
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
1. The case of the complainant is that, while purchasing a Gionee mobile phone from the OP.No.1 , he had purchased a insurance pack for a consideration of Rs. 1,299/- vide No. OA plus (L) 4306203 for protection of his mobile. The said insurance pack was valid from 19/07/2015 to 18/07/2016. During the Validity of insurance period on dt. 10.02.2016 the said mobile phone of the complainant was damaged in a motorcycle accident, for which the complainant lodge a claim before the OPs, but his claim has not been settled by the OPs. Hence the Complainant.
2. Although notice has been served on the OP.No.1, he neither appears nor filed his written version and he was set experte vide Order dt. 24.01.2017 .The OP. No.2 & 3 contested the case by filing their written version jointly . According to them, the insurance policy was sold by the retailer in the form of a kit in a sealed state wherein the terms and conditions are prescribed and also contains the way of lodging the claim in case of damage, theft or burglary of the mobile phone . The Ops have averred that, the customer should intimate the claim to the OP. on its toll free No. within 48 hours of occurrence of any untoward incident. Since the complainant has violated the aforesaid terms & conditions his claim was rejected. Hence the OPs have claims no deficiency in service on their part and claims dismissal of the case.
3. Heard the complainant. Perused the written version and documentary evidence available on record . It is an admitted fact that, the complainant had taken the insurance policy from the OPs at the time of purchase of his mobile phone for the protection the same & paid Rs.1299/- which is valid from 19/07/2015 to 18/07/2016. It is also not in dispute that, there was no damage to the mobile of the complainant during validity of the insured period. In para-3 of their written version the OPs. have also admitted that, the complainant had intimate the damage of his mobile phone on dt. 18.02.2016 .
4. With these admitted facts, the point for consideration is whether there is any violation of terms & conditions of the insurance policy . It is the OPs who have took the plea of violation of terms & condition of the policy . Therefore the burden lies on the Ops to prove that, there was violation of the terms & condition. It is seen from the Xerox copy of the policy , filed by the complainant that, it simply provided the activation process and there is no terms & conditions printed over the same. This clearly shows that, the Ops have neither explained the terms & conditions nor provided the same to the complainant. The Ops . have not produce the terms & conditions of the policy. The Ops have also not produce any evidence either by way of affidavit or otherwise to show that, there is violation of terms & conditions by the complainant in lodging the claim within 48 hours of the occurrence . Therefore the Ops have failed to discharge its burden.
5. With these material available on record and with the aforesaid discussion it is concluded that, non- settlement of the claim of the complainant by the Ops. amounts to deficiency in service . Hence :
ORDER
The Ops are directed to pay Rs.15,700/- to the complainant towardssettlement of the
insurance claim and to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order filing which the entire amount shall carry an interest @8 % P.A. till payment.
Accordingly the case of the complainant is allowed.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH’2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. MEMBER . PRESIDENT.
