BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.161 of 2016

Date of Instt. 07.04.2016

Date of Decision :17.01.2017

Dr. Ashmeet Singh, son of Sarabjit Singh r/o 309, New Jawahar nagar Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd 4, SSK Saphire Plaza, Pune Airport Road Near Symbiosis Collage, Pune 411014 through its authorized signatory.

2. Juneja Creations, 12-B, Model Town Jalandhar, through its authorized signatory.

3. Anshul, c/o Juneja Creations, 12-B, Model Town Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Counsel for complainant.

Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3 exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint filed by complainant, wherein stated that the complainant is reputed doctor and is running Hospital at Jalandhar. The complainant purchased a mobile set make Apple I phone i6 (16GB) bearing no.359259067800241 from respondent No.2 on 18.06.2015 for an amount of Rs.45,200/- inclusive of taxes. The complainant got insured the said mobile set with respondent No.1 at said Mobile House itself through representative i.e. respondent No.3 vide policy No.51322598. It is mentioned here that respondent No.3 is working as an agent of respondent No.1 in the said mobile shop of respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 has allured complainant that the said insurance is for all the purposes, as enshrined in the brochure of the respondent No.1. That unfortunately the mobile set was got damaged in an accident as the complainant was riding his bike. The phone was in right pocket of his trouser. On reaching near his house while taking turn, the mobile set fell on the conrete road and broke into two pieces. Thereafter complainant lodged a claim with respondents by filling Mobile Insurance Claim Form on 17.03.2016 and also deposited all the requisite documents as required by the respondents. The respondent instead of settling the claim of the complainant got replied the said claim by repudiating the claim of the complainant by stating that there is no accidental damage as per the incident mentioned, hence non-admissible under the policy, vide reply dated 30.03.2016. It is clearly cut case of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of respondents and the complainant has been made to suffer without any fault on his part and further prayed that the complaint may be accepted and opposite parties be directed to settle the claim of complainant and also pay Rs.25,000/- as damages and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties but despite service, opposite parties did not come present and ultimately, they were proceeded against exparte.

3. In order to prove his case, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA and some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also scanned the file very minutely.

5. After hearing the argument and from the scrutiny of the case file it reveals that the complainant has admittedly purchased a mobile set make Apple I phone i6 (16 GB) bearing No.359259067800241 from respondent No.2 on 18.06.2015 and its invoice is Ex.C1 and said mobile was got insured through OP No.2 with the OP No.1 and after purchasing, unfortunately one day while the complainant was going by his bike and the phone in question was in right pocket of his trouser but the mobile set fell on the concrete road and broke into two pieces and accordingly as per insurance the complainant submitted a claim to the OP No.1 insurance company who repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter Ex.C5 simply on the ground that there is no accidentally damages as per the “accident mentioned”. In order to prove that the mobile set get insured the complainant has placed on the file insurance card Ex.C3, no doubt the insurance policy is not brought on the file but the insurance of the mobile is not in dispute because OP No.1 has rejected the claim of the complainant it means the mobile in question was got insured by complainant but the reason mentioned in repudiation letter is not acceptable because the mobile in question was broken into two pieces just in an accident and whenever any damages caused to the product then the same is covered under insurance and accordingly the case of the complainant is also covered under the policy but the OP No.1 by rejecting the claim of the complainant has committed unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and accordingly we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed and as such the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and the mobile in question is insured with the OP No.1 therefore, OP No.1 is directed to settle the claim of the complainant and make the payment of insured amount and also pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses Rs.3000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the complainant will entitled to get interest on the above said whole amount @ 9% from the date of filing complaint till realization. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

6. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

17.01.2017 Member President