Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 507.
Instituted on : 01.09.2017.
Decided on : 25.02.2019.
Sajjan Singh, age 40 years, son of Kundan Singh, Resident of Sector-3, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. M/s Vaishno Communication, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Civil Road, Rohtak, through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorized person.
2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizan Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-23, DLF, Phase V, Gurgaon Haryana-122202, through its Managing Director.
3. YMS Mobitech Private Limited, H.75-201301, Sector-63, Noida (Utter Pradesh) through its Manager.
4. New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Arvind Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties No. 1 and 3 already exparte.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No. 2.
Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite party No. 4.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that on 31.03.2016 complainant had purchased a Samsung Galaxy J5 mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 3568230753444080 and 3568240753444088 from OP No. 1 vide invoice no.5250 dated 31.03.2016 for Rs.11,400/- and the same was insured with the respondents No. 3 and 4 and complainant paid extra amount for the said insurance of said phone at the time of its purchase. OP No. 3 has been tie up with the OP No. 4. OP No. 2 is manufacturer of said mobile phone. It is alleged that due to an accident, the said mobile damaged within insurance period and complainant intimated the OPs No. 1 and 3. Then OP No. 3 inform to complainant that his claim has been initiated successfully and his claim number is DFEB23310 on dated 07.10.2017. That complainant submitted all the required documents to the OPs No. 3 and 4. On 27.02.2017, OP No. 3 pick up the said damaged mobile through E.Com. Express Pvt. Ltd. vide Bill No. 50799805 order No. YMSES5860877, but OPs No. 3 and 4 neither settled the claim nor paid the claim amount till date to the complainant. That the act of opposite parties of not passing the alleged claim amount is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay claim amount of Rs.11,400/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from its accrual till actual realization and also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/-litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply has submitted that there is no privity of contract between the OP No. 2 and the insurance company and OP No. 2 is not responsible for any act of other OPs. So, under the agreement which is between the complainant and insurance company, only insurance company is responsible. It is further submitted that OP No. 2 provides one year warranty from the date of purchase of unit but subject to some conditions i.e. if the unit got physically damage due to mishandling, and complainant himself stated that the mobile got damaged due to mishandling, so the warranty of unit has gone barred. It is also submitted that the complainant submitted his unit with OPs No. 3 and 4 for repair and never reported to OP No. 2, so, no question of any deficiency on the part of OP No. 2 arises at all. Lastly prayed for dismissal the complaint qua the OP No. 2.
3. Opposite party No. 4 in its reply has submitted that complainant not supplied any copy of insurance policy, claim number, letter/repudiation letter (if any) to the OP No. 4. That no claim is lodged by the insured before the answering OP in the said policy. Moreover, all claims will be settled by the insurance company as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further submitted that complainant is not entitled for any claim from the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal the complaint qua the OP No. 4.
4. OP No. 1 failed to appear before the court despite due service, hence, OP No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.10.2017. Notice issued to OP No. 3 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. Hence, OP no. 3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.10.2017 of this Forum.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 26.09.2018. Learned counsel for the OP No. 2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on dated 26.09.2018. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No. 4 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to R3 and closed his evidence on dated 17.01.2019.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per bill Ex.C1 complainant had purchased the mobile on 31.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.11,400/- and the alleged mobile was insured with OP No. 4 through OP No. 3. The alleged mobile had damaged during the insurance period and complainant lodged the claim with the OP No. 4. As per communication history placed on record as Ex.C6, complainant deposited all the documents with the opposite parties time and again. On dated 11.02.2017, OP replied that the claim was under approval process but, thereafter again asked the complainant to upload the documents. On 24.04.2017, OP submitted that the case has been complete in total loss process and the claim cheque bearing No. 803169 is ready and will be dispatched shortly. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, claim has not been settled by the OP No. 3 & 4 which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
8. As such, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the OP No.3 & 4 to pay the insured value of mobile after deduction of 25% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.8,550/- (Rupees Eight thousand five hundred fifty only) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 01.09.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.02.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
