This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of Sri. I. Venkateswarlu, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. G. Sita Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.1 appeared in person; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the father of complainant had purchased Samsung Galaxy-S3 mobile for his daughter / complainant from the opposite party No.1 for Rs.37,250/- on 18-12-2012 and insured the same with the opposite party No.2 vide policy No.55180046119500000088 with effect from 18-12-2012 to 17-12-2013, covering the risk of theft, damage etc,.  On 01-05-2013 the father of complainant has lost the mobile, while travelling from Mudigonda to Khammam.  Immediately, lodged a complaint before police, Mudigonda and claimed the opposite party No.2 for insurance amount.  The police registered the case under section 379 of IPC.  After conducting detailed enquiry, submitted final report on 03-09-2013, mentioning that the mobile was not traced out.  On 18-03-2014 the complainant had issued legal notice to the opposite party No.2 by requesting to settle the claim.  After making many rounds and even after receipt of legal notice there was no response in settlement, causes much inconvenience and as such filed this complaint by praying to direct the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.37,250/- together with interest at 24% per annum and costs. 

3.      In support of her case, the complainant filed affidavit and Exhibits A-1 to A-5.

4.      After having receipt of notice, the opposite party No.1 filed its counter and submitted that the complainant neither given any information regarding the loss of mobile nor issued legal notice.  The opposite party No.1 only sold the mobile to the complainant and acted as a mediator between the insured and the insurer.  The opposite party No.2 is only liable to settle the claim; therefore, there is no deficiency of service on its part and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

5.       In its counter, the opposite party No.2 submitted that the father of complainant could not find his cell phone while traveling from Mudigonda to Khammam on 29-04-2013 by his motor cycle and further submitted that as per final report of police, the father of complainant has lost the cell phone from his pocket, while driving the vehicle the loss arising due to unexplainable loss i.e.  Missing / misplaced, arising of loss caused due to negligence, carelessness, poor care and maintenance and willful act are the exclusions under the policy.  The opposite party No.2 also submitted that the insurance benefit is only available to the original purchaser of the mobile, so, there is no liability under terms and conditions of policy.  Insurance contract is a contract of indemnity and the insured cannot claim anything more than the coverage under policy.  The present complaint having several complicated issues, so the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the same and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

Along with a petition vide IA.No.28/2016 the opposite party No.2 filed policy copy along with terms and conditions and repudiation letter, marked under exhibits B-1 and B-2.

6.      In support of its averments the opposite party No.2 filed its Written Arguments by reiterating the same averments.  

7.      In view of above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-       

          According to the above mentioned averments, the father of complainant had purchased Samsung Galaxy-S3 mobile phone in the name of complainant for her usage and insured the same with the opposite party No.2.  During the policy was in force, the father of complainant has lost the mobile on 29-04-2013 after completion of his work at Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, Mudigonda. On that day, he travelled on a motor cycle from Khammam to Mudigonda on his personal work.  After loss of mobile, issued complaint before police, Mudigonda and preferred claim petition to the insurer.   As there was no response, issued legal notice and finally filed the present complaint by placing exhibits A-1 to A-5.  On the other hand the opposite parties denied their liability by filing separate counters, the opposite party No.2 had placed the policy copy along with terms and conditions and the repudiation letter, marked as exhibits B-1 and B-2.  After considering the facts and material on record, we have observed that the cause of loss was contrarily mentioned by the complainant in her complaint before police as her mobile was committed theft by unknown persons but in the averments of complaint in hand the father of complainant had lost the mobile while travelling from Mudigonda to Khammam.  After having gone through the final report of police, marked under exhibit A-4, we have observed that the father of the complainant has lost the mobile during his travelling on his motor cycle.  After completion of investigation, the final report also speaks that the father of complainant might have slipped his mobile from his side pocket while driving the vehicle, due to sensitivity of mobile phone, the software might be lost.  Finally it is also stated that there is no chance in to trace out of the mobile, therefore, referred as undetected.  It seems that the mobile was lost during travelling from the custody of father of complainant.  As per the terms and conditions of policy, the risk covered in case of theft, riot and strike, fire and road accidents but excludes the coverage in case of risk arising from unexplainable loss (missing/misplaced/mysterious disappearance) and also the loss arising from negligence, carelessness, poor care and maintenance and willful act.  Therefore, the cause of loss of mobile of the complainant does not covered under terms and conditions of said policy.  This Forum cannot alter and go beyond the terms and conditions of policy, as agreed by both the parties at the time of entering into the insurance contract and as such the point is answered against the complainant.

8.      In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 28^th day of October, 2016.

                                                FAC President              Member      

                                           District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

FAC President              Member

     District Consumer Forum, Khammam.