BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint no. 83 of 2016.
Date of Institution: 22.3.2016.
Date of Decision: 18.1.2017
Rukkaiya Tasmeem daughter of Molvi Khursid Alam, resident of House No. 683/11 Gali No.6, Kirti Nagar, Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Wadhwa Mobile Care Near Jaipur Golden Hospital Circular Road, Sirsa through its Prop. Ajay Kumar @ Deepak son of Mohan Lal.
- The New India Assurance Company Limited Branch Office Banglore through its Divisional Manager.
- Sachdeva Sales Corporation Behind LIC Building Old Civil Hospital Complex, Sirsa through its Prop. Raman Sachdeva.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. H.S. Saharan, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Opposite parties No.1 & 3 already exparte.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that she had purchased a mobile make Micromax Fire 2-A104 IMEI No.911368051450625 and 911368051551553 from opposite party no.1 for a total sum of Rs.7000/- vide invoice No.47971 dated 24.12.2014. The mobile was got insured by her with opposite party no.3 on the asking of op no.1 at the time of purchase and she paid a sum of Rs.500/- as insurance charges and op no.1 told that in the event of any type of loss/ damage to mobile phone, same shall be replaced within a period of one year from the date of purchase and in that case the op no.2 shall be liable to pay an amount of Rs.7000/- i.e. the price of the mobile. The mobile was insured for a period of one year i.e. w.e.f. 24.12.2014 to 23.12.2015 but unfortunately on 16.10.2015 the same fell down and was damaged. The display, camera and touch of the mobile were damaged. The complainant intimated the op no.1 about the incident and op no.1 given the mobile number of op no.2 and when she contacted with the officials of op no.2, they advised to contact with op no.3 who checked the mobile set of complainant and told that defect occurred in the mobile and is not in repairable condition. Thereafter, she visited the shop of op no.1 who given the insurance policy number to her and she received the same through internet. The complainant visited several times to op no no.1 and telephonically contacted with the official of op no.2 to get the amount of Rs.7000/- as sale price of mobile but the ops after postponing the matter on one pretext or the other have totally refused to admit the claim of complainant a week back. Earlier, she filed a complaint against ops in this regard but same has been dismissed in default on 10.2.2016. So, she is filing this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.1 & 3 did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed written version taking several preliminary objections mainly that IMEI number is the very basis of insurance cover and there was anomaly in the same regarding insurance cover and bill and this was a major discrepancy and complainant failed to clarify the aspect by submitting the relevant documents to the company, resultantly competent authority was not able to proceed further, hence claim lodged by complainant was closed due to this very reason, so even in case any document is brought before this Forum by the complainant, complainant can very well approach the company/ competent authority for the grievances and for re-opening of the claim file. On merits, it has also been submitted that as per invoice No.47971 dated 24.12.2014, mobile in question having IMEI No.911368051450525 was purchased by complainant. There is no record having reference of IMEI No.911368051551553 submitted by complainant or by ops no.1 and 3 to the company. It is wrong that complainant got insured her mobile from answering op. The mobile as mentioned and referred in the invoice issued by op no.1 was covered under the policy got issued to APPS Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The mobile insured for the period mentioned here under the coverage was subject to term and conditions of the policy and according to which replacement is possible only in case the set is not repairable one. Prima facie against the claim lodged by complainant, pre-approval for the claim was given on 17.11.2015 on total loss basis for Rs.3350/- to be settled provided all original documents and damaged equipments including full box with accessories would have been submitted to the concerned authority, but after perusal of requisite claim documents, it was observed by the competent authority that invoice was not having such IMEI number as claimed. Moreover, it is the duty of insured to maintain the articles insured in a proper and safe manner.
4. By way of evidence, complainant has tendered her affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, incident report Ex.C3 and details of insured Ex.C4. On the other hand, op no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.R1, letter dated 14.9.2016 Ex.R2, copy of bill Ex.R3, details of insured Ex.R4, copy of estimate letter for repair Ex.R5 and copy of insurance policy Ex.R6.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. According to the opposite party no.2, as per invoice No.47971 dated 24.12.2014, the mobile in question bearing IMEI No.911368051450525 was purchased by complainant whereas there is no record/ reference of IMEI No.911368051551553 submitted by complainant or by ops no.1 and 3 to the company. According to the complainant, the mobile in question was bearing both above said IMEI numbers but opposite party no.1 has only mentioned No.911368051450525 on the bill, which is also evident from the copy of the same Ex.C2. From the perusal of details of insured and details of handset Ex.C4, it is evident that mobile in question purchased vide invoice No.47971 having IMEI No. 911368051551553 which was not mentioned by op no.1 on the bill was insured by opposite party no.2 vide insurance policy issued to APPS Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd. So, the complainant has been deprived to get benefit of the insurance claim for the lapse on the part of op no.1 and complainant is not at any fault in this regard. The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.7000/- from the opposite parties being the price of the mobile in question but according to op no.2 as per term and conditions of insurance policy, replacement is possible only in case the set is not repairable one and prima facie against the claim lodged by complainant pre-approval for the claim was given on 17.11.2015 on total loss basis for Rs.3350/-. In this regard, op no.2 has placed on file letter dated 14.9.2016 Ex.R2 and estimate letter Ex.R5 issued by op no.3 showing that repair estimate cost of mobile is Rs.3636/- plus tax and therefore, in our view considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to repair costs of the mobile to the extent of Rs.3350/- approved by op no.2 as per terms and conditions of the policy as set is repairable as per estimate letter of op no.3 Ex.R5. Besides that, complainant is also entitled to interest on that amount as she has not received the said amount in time.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3350/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 22.3.2016 till actual payment. This order should be complied by all the opposite parties jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 18.1.2017 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
