BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Complaint Case no.67 of  2017       

                                                          Date of Institution:          21.3.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:     24.01.2018

Gurvinder Singh son of Sh. Joga Singh, resident of village Moriwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                        ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. M/s Shree Satyam Mobiles, Sadar Bazar Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.

                              ……… Opposite parties.

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

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT

                   SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.

Present:           Sh. S.L. Sidhu, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

ORDER

          In brief, case of complainant is that complainant purchased a mobile Samsung Galaxy A5 for an amount of Rs.16,500/- from the opposite party no.1 on 13.4.2016 after every type of assurance given by op no.1 with guarantee/ warranty of the said mobile for one year. At that time, op no.1 also instigated the complainant to get insured the above said mobile from op no.2 and on asking and pressurizing of op no.1, the complainant got insured his above said mobile with op no.2 on the same day vide policy no.950000046151100000001 and op no.2 assured the complainant that if any loss/ damage occurred to the said mobile, then they will pay all the insured amount to the complainant. That on 4.3.2016 at about 10.30 a.m., the complainant was going to market and at that time a motor cycle hit the complainant from back side due to which the mobile of complainant fell down on the road and a car passed over it and due to which the said mobile damaged. It is further averred that then complainant immediately lodged his claim with op no.2 vide claim no.DMAR47057 but the op started to put the matter off with one pretext or the other and now both the ops have flatly refused to admit the claim of the complainant. Due to the act and conduct of the ops, the complainant is suffering a great harassment, mental tension and agony for which the complainant is entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- from the ops besides the insured amount of the mobile and litigation expenses. Hence, this complainant.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op no.1 is doing his business on a nominal profit, whereas the customer pre-set their mind to purchase the mobile set or any related accessory or the insurance plan for the same after going through the pamphlets, advertisement and publications etc. It is further submitted that it is wrong to say that op no.1 ever investigated or allured the complainant to purchase the insurance policy for the same, rather it was the complainant who desired to purchase the insurance policy, hence there is no active role of op no.1 in between the insurance company and the complainant and when the op no.1 never sold any insurance policy to the complainant, then the question of any guarantee or warrantee or paying any amount of insurance simply does not arise. It is further submitted that complainant never approached to op no.1 and if the complainant would have approached to the answering op, then the answering op would have tried his best to redress the grievance of complainant if any through proper channel. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.

3.                Opposite party no.2 filed separate written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant of his own had got insured the mobile with answering op. However, the alleged incidence was not reported to the police and the police did not record any DDR or FIR in respect of alleged incidence. So, in the absence of any DDR or FIR, the alleged occurrence is denied in toto. No claim has ever been lodged by the complainant with the answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.     

4.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/1, copy of bill Ex.C1, estimate Ex.C2 and claim form Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. K.S. Chaudhary, Sr. Divisional Manager as Ex.R1. Ld. counsel for op no.1 has suffered a statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.1 be read in evidence of op no.1.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/1 wherein he has reiterated all the averments of his complaint. He has also placed on file copy of bill Ex.C1, estimate Ex.C2 and claim form Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. K.S. Chaudhary, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.R1 who has deposed on the lines of written statement of op no.2.

7.                It is proved fact on record that complainant had got his mobile set insured with opposite party no.2 through op no.1 which was purchased by complainant on 13.4.2016 from opposite party no.1 for a consideration of Rs.16,500/-. As per allegation of the complainant on 4.3.2017 at about 10.30 a.m. he was going to market and at that time a motor cycle hit the complainant from back side, due to which the mobile of the complainant fell down on the road and a car passed over it due to which the said mobile was damaged and he is entitled to the insured amount of the mobile set as same was insured with op no.2. On the other hand, there is specific denial of the opposite party no.2 qua the damage of the mobile and further it has been contended by learned counsel for ops that the complainant did not inform the ops regarding the accidental damage of the mobile set nor he lodged any claim with the ops but however they have conceded to the issuance of insurance coverage of the mobile set of the complainant. During the course of arguments, complainant who was present in the Forum has produced the damaged mobile set through same does not appear to be damaged in a car accident from its appearance but however the mobile produced by the complainant is definitely in a damaged condition. But the complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion from which it could be presumed that mobile needs total replacement and thus he is entitled for repair of the mobile only as same was damaged during validity of the insurance coverage.

8.                In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to get the mobile of the complainant repaired without any cost within 15 days on production of the mobile by complainant and in case it is found that mobile is not repairable in that eventuality the ops shall be at liberty to pay the amount after deducting amount of depreciation. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile set in question to the ops well in time. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.              Member                      President,

Dated:24.1.2018.                                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.