Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/90/2016

Rajesh Bhutani - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s SYSKA Gadget Secure - Opp.Party(s)

N.S. Jagdeva Adv.

18 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	90/2016
Date of Institution	:	04.02.2016
Date of Decision	:	18/04/2016

 

                                       

                                               

Rajesh Bhutani s/o Late Sh.M.L.Bhutani r/o H.No.1478, Silver City, Green Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     M/s Syska Gadget Secure through its Manager, SCO No.109, 1^st Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

 

2.     City Color Labs and Portraits authorized dealer of Apple Phones, through its Proprietor SCO No.1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.N.S.Jagdeva, Counsel for the complainant

                OPs No.1 and 2 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the case of the complainant is that  he purchased mobile handset make Apple I phone 6 Model 16 GB from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 22.05.2015 for Rs.53,500/-. He also got it insured with OP No.1 by paying a sum of Rs.1999/- vide Coupon Code No.36811492 dated 22.05.2015 (Annexure P-2).  The Insurance Policy was sold by OP No.2 on behalf of OP No.1.   The mobile phone was insured against the risk of accidental damage, water and fluid damage, theft, burglary and fire damage. On 21.12.2015, the mobile was stolen when the complainant went to buy medicine for his wife.  It has been averred that while buying medicines, he talked to his wife at 6 PM on 21.12.2015 and then he put his phone in his pocket and bought medicines. After some time, he could not find the same in his pocket as the same was stolen by somebody on the chemist shop. Subsequently he lodged the DDR dated 21.12.2015 with the Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh (Annexure C-4).     It has further been averred that the claim has been repudiated vide letter dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure C-6) without any reason. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Despite due service through registered post, the Opposite Parties failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.03.2016.
3.         We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         In his exparte evidence, the complainant tendered his duly sworn affidavit stating therein that the mobile phone in question has been stolen by somebody on the chemist shop or from some other place.  He has also placed reliance upon the DDR dated 21.12.2015 (Annexure C-4) wherein he stated that he kept the mobile phone in his pocket at the time of purchase of the medicines but later on he could not find the same.  The repudiation of the claim by OP No.1 on the ground that there was no forceful/violent act was involved is totally bereft of any merit and the same is held to be illegal & unjustified. For every instance of theft/loss/stolen of article, the use of force/violent act, is not at all said to be a necessary ingredient because the theft/loss of any article can very well be happened without use of any force or violent act.  Furthermore, the complainant/insured cannot be made to suffer for the loss/theft of the insured article, which has occurred without use of any force or violent act by the unscrupulous & deceitful persons.   Not only this, even the Insurance Company/OP did not turn up firstly to rebut the allegations of the complainant by leading cogent and convincing documentary evidence and secondly, it failed to establish that theft/stolen/loss of any article cannot, at all, happen without use of forceful/violent act.
5.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under ;-

1. To pay Rs.53,500/-  i.e. the price of the mobile handset in question after deducting 10%   of total invoice value (Annexure C-1) as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,500/-  as litigation expenses.

This order be complied with by OP No.1, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

6.         The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.
7.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

18/04/2016                                                                      sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER