Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/125/2016

Subhash Chand S/o Ram Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kamal Gift Gallery - Opp.Party(s)

Shriom Kamboj

29 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 125 of 2016.

                                                                                    Date of institution:22.04.2016

                                                                                    Date of decision: 29.12.2016

 

Subhash Chand aged about 45 years son of late Sh. Ram Singh, r/o Village Manakpur, Post Office Udhamgarh, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                          …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. M/s Kamal Gift Gallery, Near Police Station Buria Gate, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar through its Prop./Partner.
2. Syska Gadget Secure, 6^th Floor, Saphhire Plaza, Plot No.80, S. No. 232, New Airport Rd. Near Symbiosis College Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra-411014 through its Managing Director.   

                                                                                                                            ...Respondents

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Shriom Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                         Respondents No.1 & 2 already ex-parte vide order dated 30.05.2016.

             

ORDER

 

1.                        Complainant Subhash Chand has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a mobile make Samsung E700 358185064551770 for an amount of Rs. 17,500/- vide bill No. 803 dated 07.08.2015 from respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as OP No.1). At the time of purchasing of the aforesaid mobile phone the complainant also purchased an insurance policy from the OP no.2 through Op No.1 to insure his aforesaid mobile phone against any sort of theft and damages etc. Unfortunately, the mobile phone of the complainant lost on 27.03.2016 at Manakpur, District Yamuna Nagar and in this regard the complainant immediately got reported the matter with the police vide application No. 130101163109 and the said mobile phone has not been recovered so far. As per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant immediately lodged his claim online with the Op No.2 and fulfilled all the requisite formalities of Op No.2 which were necessary to get the claim but it was very shocking for the complainant when the Op No.2 flatly rejected the said claim of the complainant without any cogent reason and rhyme and stated that they could accept the claim only in case of mobile phone theft committed with forceful act. The repudiation of the claim of the complainant is absolutely wrong, incorrect and illegal as the OPs never told the complainant at the time of selling the said insurance policy in respect of their alleged terms and conditions. Lastly, it has been prayed that the OPs be directed to pay insurance claim of Rs. 17,500/- and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Notice issued to the OP No. 1 through process server and OP No.2 through registered post but they failed to appear despite service, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30.05.2016.

4.                     In support of ex-parte case counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of bill bearing No. 803 dated 07.08.2015 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of DDR dated 27.03.2016 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of repudiation letter as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of insurance card alongwith terms and conditions as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of instructions/terms and conditions of the OP No.2 as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of application of sim block confirmation as Annexure C-6 and C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

6.                     The only grievances of the complainant is that at the time of purchasing the mobile Samsung E700 358185064551770 on 07.08.2015, complainant also purchased an insurance policy from Op No.2 through OP No.1 for covering the risk against loss, theft or damages etc. and when unfortunately on 27.03.2016 his mobile set in question lost in the area of Manakpur, District Yamuna Nagar, upon which, complainant also lodged a DDR with the police station vide application No. 130101163109 but the OP No.2 insurance company has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the copy of bill Annexure C-1, copy of DDR dated 27.03.2016 Annexure C-2 and Rejection/repudiation letter issued by the Op no.2 Annexure C-3 and argued that OP No. 2 Insurance Company has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant whereas from the copy of DDR lodged with the police, it is duly evident that mobile set of the complainant was lost on 27.03.2016. Further, it is also not disputed that claim of the complainant has been rejected/repudiated by the Op No.2 Insurance Company on the ground that “ Claim does not meet eligibility criteria which is duly evident from the copy of repudiation letter Annexure C-3 issued by Op No.2. We have gone through the terms and conditions of so called insurance policy which has been placed on file by the complainant himself as Annexure C-4 and C-5 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the company is only liable in case of damage and theft of the mobile in question and procedure for lodging the claim in both the cases has been explained. Further the exclusion clause under the head “following will not be covered” (Annexure C-5) has also been placed on file by the complainant himself in which also some categories have been disclosed vide which company is not responsible to pay the claim amount i.e. negligence and intentional act, claim intimated after 48 hours of the incident, pick pocket, use of phone during adventure, sports/ water sports, mysterious missing only accidental event (slip from hand, pocket, purse not covered) thrown in fit of anger, forgotten in auto/taxi, phone kept unattended etc. In the present case, the complainant has lodged only DDR in which also no explanation has been given that how the mobile set in question was misplaced. From the other angle also, the complainant has totally failed to prove that he had paid any premium on account of insurance to the OP No.2 Insurance Company or any Insurance policy/card was issued to the complainant covering the risk of mobile set in question. The complainant has placed on file only photo copy of bill bearing No. 803 dated 17.08.2015 (Annexure C-1) and from the perusal of this bill it is duly evident that complainant has paid only Rs. 17500/-on account of cost of the mobile set Samsung  E700 bearing EMEI No. 358185064551770. In this bill not even a single iota of word has been mentioned regarding the insurance of mobile in question. When the complainant failed to prove that mobile set in question was insured with the OP No.2 Insurance Company then how he can claim the insurance amount from the OP No.2 Insurance Company. Complainant has not placed on file any literature or any documentary proof vide which the insurance premium was included in the amount of bill.

7.                     In the circumstances noted above, although the OPs remained ex-parte, however, in the case of ex-party heavy burden lies on the shoulder of the complainant himself to prove his case from all four corners but in the present case the complainant has not placed on file any insurance policy/cover note for covering the risk of mobile set in question. Moreover, the case of the complainant is not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question.

8.                     Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 29.12.2016.

 

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

                                                                        D.C.D.R.F. YAMUNANAGAR.

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                        MEMBER