BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,FATEHABAD.

                                                               Complaint No.:43 of 2018.                                                                                                            Date of Instt.: 01.02.2018.

                                                               Date of Order: 15.10.2018.

Ravinder Kumar son of Chhotu Ram, resident of village Pilimandori, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                                                   …Complainant.

                             Versus

1. M/s R.K. Stickers & Mobile Shop No. 14, Palika Bazar, Fatehabad through its Proprietor/partners.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director/Managing Director.

                                                                   …Respondents/OPs

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:                Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                            Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.

Dr. Rajni Goyat, Member.

Present:               Sh. Sukhbir Dhaka, Adv. for the complainant.

                            Sh. V.K. Mehta, Adv. for OP no. 2.

                            OP no. 1 already exparte.

ORDER

                             The present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he purchased a mobile Apple iPhone 6 from OP no. 1 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 16.2.2017 and made the payment of the same in cash to OP no. 1.  It is also further submitted that the said amount also included the insurance amount and the abovesaid handset was insured with OP no. 2 vide Master Policy No. 9500004616110000001 and as such complainant is the consumer of the OPs. 

2.                          It is further submitted that after 20 days, the handset in question got broken and the same was handed over by the complainant to the OP no. 1.  The complainant was assured by OP no. 1 that he would be given new mobile or the cost of the handset will be refunded to him.  Since then the complainant is regularly visiting OP no. 1.  However, the OP no. 1 avoided the matter under one pretext or the other.  Therefore, there is deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant.  The complainant has further prayed that the OPs may be directed either to replace the mobile or to refund the original cost of the same.  The complainant has also further prayed that a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- may be allowed in his favour.  Hence, the present complaint.

3.                          Despite proper service OP no. 1 did not appear before this Forum and as such he was proceeded exparte on 8.3.2018.

4.                          On being served the OP no. 2 appeared and filed written statement, wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, jurisdiction and suppression of true and correct facts etc. have been raised.

5.                          In reply on merits, it is submitted that the complainant never submitted insurance policy or any insurance claim regarding the handset in question before OP no. 2.  Therefore, in absence of any insurance policy and insurance claim the OP no. 2 is unable to decide the insurance claim of the complainant.  Therefore, the present complaint is pre-mature and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.                          The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Exhibit CW1/A along-with the documents as Exhibit C-1, Annexure C-1 and Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence of the complainant.  On the other hand, Shri K.S. Chaudhary Senior Divisional Manager tendered his affidavit in evidence as Exhibit RW1.

7.                          We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record.  The OP no. 2 has resisted the present complaint mainly on the ground that the complainant never submitted any insurance policy nor any insurance claim or any other document with regard to insurance claim.  In absence of the same the OP no. 2 is unable to decide the insurance claim of the complainant.

8.                          From perusal of the documents placed on record of the present case, the complainant has not produced any document to prove that the insurance claim and the insurance policy were submitted by the complainant with OP no. 2.  Therefore, we are agreed with the contention of the OP no. 2 that since the complainant has not submitted any insurance claim and other documents with the OP no. 2 and as such the claim of the complainant cannot be decided.  Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is pre-mature.  The complainant is given liberty to file his insurance claim with the OP no. 2 along-with relevant documents and after receiving the insurance claim the OPs are directed to take decision regarding the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the insurance claim.  In case the complainant would be aggrieved from the decision to be taken by OP no. 2 in that eventuality the complainant will be at liberty to file a fresh complaint against the said decision.  The present complaint is accordingly disposed of.  A copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost as provided in the rules.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum: 

Dt.15.10.2018.                                 

(Rajni Goyat)  (Jasvinder Singh)                           (Raghbir Singh)

          Member                Member                            President                                                                                       DCDRF, Fatehabad.