Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

247/2013

Sri.S.Karuppaswamy,son of Late.Sri.A.Srinivasa Naidu,Hindu,aged about 70 years,Advocate, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Universal,Corporate Office,Rep by its Branch manager,. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.B.R.Sankaralingam

20 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                                           Complaint presented on:  24.12.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on: 06.07.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY THE 06^th    DAY OF JULY 2016

 

C.C.NO.247/2013

 

Sri.S.Kuppusamy Son of,

Late.Sri.A.Srininvasa Naidu,

Hindu, aged about 70 years,

Advocate, No.160, I Floor,

Tambu Chetty Street,

Chennai – 600 001.

                                                                                  ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.M/s.Universal, Corporate Office, Rep.by its Branch Manager, No.281, T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.   2.M/s. Alegion Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Branch Manager, No.7C, Perumal Koil Street, Nerkundram, Chennai – 600 107.   3.The senior Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office II, 4th Floor, UTL Building, 4th, Esplanade, Chennai – 600 108.
	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                : 27.12.2013 

Counsel for Complainant                    : B.R.Shankaralingam

Counsel for  1^st  opposite party              : Mr.R.Gopi

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                    : Ms.V.Vimala (Ex-parte)

Counsel for 3^rd Opposite Party                     :N.Maheswaraiah        

 

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased a NOKIA Mobile Model Asha 202 on 24.08.2012 at the 1^st Opposite Party retail shop for a consideration of Rs.4,050/-. The said mobile was insured with the 3^rd Opposite Party. On the very next day on 25.08.2012 while the Complainant was travelling from his residence Adambakkam to his office at Thambu Chety Street, Parrys the said mobile was stolen/lost. The Complainant lodged a Complaint at North Beach Police Station, Chennai. On 27.08.2012 the Complainant submitted claim with documents to the agent/2^nd Opposite Party of the 3^rd Opposite Party. The said claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company by letter dated 07.09.2013 was missed or misplaced. The Complainant issued legal notice to the Opposite Parties. The police also issued non traceable certificate to the Complainant. The claim of the Complainant is coverable by the insurance. By rejecting the claim the Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in Service. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Parties the pay the cost of the product and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IS IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st Opposite Party is the authorized retail seller and selling various manufacturers cell phones, Data Cards and such other accessories. The Insurance claim shall be settled only by the insurance as against the mobile phone. The Opposite Party is no way liable as per the purchase invoice issued by him. This Opposite Party no way responsible for the claim of the Complainant rejected by the Insurance Company/3^rd Opposite Party. This Opposite Party had not committed any negligence in service at the time of issuing mobile insurance to the Complainant. Hence this Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IS IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant has failed to prove that his claim is acceptable as per the terms and conditions of the policy. This Opposite Party forwarded the documents submitted by the Complainant to the 3^rd Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party is only a broker and he is neither liable nor responsible for the repudiation of the claim made by the 3^rd Opposite Party. Further this Opposite Party is not authorized either to settle or repudiate the insurance claim. Hence this Opposite Party prays to reject the Complaint made against him.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTY IS IN BRIEF:

          This Opposite Party admits that he has issued the policy individual and group mobile insurance to the 1^st Opposite Party for covering the New mobile phone have sold  by them. It is admitted that the Complainant has purchased a new mobile from the 1^st Opposite Party on 24.08.2012 and the said mobile was covered under the insurance policy issued by this Opposite Party. The above said policy covers 1) Fire loss 2) Riot & Strike, Terrorism 3) Theft by unknown person and 4) Loss or total damage arising out of the Road accidents only. It is also submitted that at the time of purchase of the mobile, the purchasers are being informed about the coverage details by the sales person at the stores. After coming to know the details, if the purchaser opts for the coverage under the policy, a printed form, which is treated as a certificate is issued to them. The said certificate contains the coverage details, exclusions and documents to be produced at the time of claim and whom to be approached at the time of claim at one side and the claim form on the other side. The Complainant submitted a claim to the 2^nd Opposite Party for theft of his mobile on 27.08.2012 along with documents alleging that mobile was lost on 25.08.2012 while he was travelling. The policy covers only for theft by unknown person. However, the fact is that the Complainant has missed his mobile comes under the exclusion of the policy. Hence this Opposite Party is not liable to pay the claim of the Complainant and hence it is prayed to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

6. POINT NO :1

The Complainant purchased a Nokio Model Asha 202 mobile on 24.08.2012 under Ex.A1 invoice for a consideration of Rs.4,050/- from the 1^st Opposite Party. At the time of purchasing the mobile, it was covered under the insurance policy issued by the 3^rd Opposite Party.

          7. According to the Complainant on the very next day, when he travelled in 21 G bus from Adambakkam to Parrys and while he was alighting at the High Court bus stop, he found that he lost his mobile phone and immediately he gave Ex.A2 Complaint to the police and the police issued CSR to his Complaint and after investigation they issued Ex.A7 non-traceable certificate that they could not detect the case and  based on that he made a insurance claim under Ex.A3 through the 2^nd Opposite Party of the 3^rd Opposite Party and the 3^rd Opposite Party rejected the claim under Ex.A4 that the claim  falls under exclusion clause no.1 of the policy and hence he repudiated the claim as not sustainable.

          8. Ex.A2 is the Complaint given by the Complainant to the police that he lost his mobile phone. In the said Complaint in the subject column he had written as “The Complaint in respect of phone theft”. The 3^rd Opposite Party insurance rejected the claim that he only lost the mobile phone and that will not cover under the policy conditions and hence it was rejected. The Complainant argued that at the time of preferring Ex.A2 Complaint to the police that he had written only as “theft” in the subject column and however the sub-Inspector of police who received the Complaint informed that unless he score out the word “theft” in the Complaint he will not  receive the Complaint. Hence the Complainant after deleting the word theft he written as “lost” in the Complaint. Even on the cursory perusal of the Complaint, it clearly reveals that the word “theft” found in Ex.A2 Complaint and the Complaint preferred by the Complainant only with an intention that his mobile was committed theft is accepted. Hence the 3^rd Opposite Party rejected the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the mobile was not committed theft and it is only lost is not sustainable.

9. Further Ex.A3 claim form has the heading of “Univercell mobile theft insurance claim form”. The 3^rd Opposite Party admits that he has issued the policy individual and group mobile insurance to the 1^st Opposite Party for covering the New mobile phone have sold by them. Accordingly  the insurance covered by the 1^st Opposite Party as per the policies already issued by the 3^rd Opposite Party to the 1^st Opposite Party and hence the 1^st Opposite Party is also liable for the act committed by the 3^rd Opposite Party. The rejection of the claim made by the Complainant is not sustainable and therefore it is held that the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Party have committed Deficiency in Service. However, the 2^nd Opposite Party is only an agent has not committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant, who has only forwarded the claim papers to the 3^rd Opposite Party.

10. POINT NO:2

          The cost of the mobile phone was Rs.4050/- the same was covered by the policy and hence the Complainant is entitled for the cost of the mobile of Rs.4,050/- from the 1^st & 3^rd Opposite Parties. By rejecting the claim the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.    

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed.  The Opposite Parties 1 & 3 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.4,050/-(Rupees four  thousand and fifty  only) towards the cost of the Nokia Mobile Phone  to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The Complaint in respect of the 2^nd Opposite Party is dismissed without cost.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 06^th day of July 2016.

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 24.08.2012                   Bill for purchase of Mobile Phone (Xerox)

Ex.A2 dated 25.08.2012                   Copy of Complaint with CSR

Ex.A3 dated 27.08.2012                   Copy of claim Application with duplicate SIM

                                                Certificate

 

Ex.A4 dated 07.09.2012                   Copy of letter from oriental Insurance company

                                                 Ltd., Chennai

 

Ex.A5 dated 22.10.2012                   Copy of legal notice with Acknowledgement by

                                                    the complainant

Ex.A6 dated 19.11.2012                   Copy of reply notice by the first Opposite Party

Ex.A7 dated 11.09.2013                   Copy of non-traceable certificate

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY :

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Authorization letter

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Insurance Claim Form

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     Insurance Policy

Ex.B4 dated NIL                     CSR copy

Ex.B5  dated                           Not payable Reason

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 3^rd   OPPOSITE PARTY :

Ex.B6 dated 17.12.2012                   Investigation Report

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT