This case is coming for final hearing on 29.09.2014 in the presence of Sri Kuppili Muralidhar Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri B.Purushotama Reddy Advocate for 2^nd Opposite Party and case against 1^st & 3^rd Opposite parties dismissed and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on

behalf of the Bench)

1.     The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a Nokia E-6 Mobile handset on 17.09.2011 having IMEI No.354875044780374, invoice No.10 for an amount of Rs.15,799/- from Reliance Digital, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam i.e., 3^rd opposite party.  While so, the handset was lost by the Complainant on 12.02.2012, while travelling from Visakhapatnam to Vizianagaram in Vijayawada-Raayagada Passenger Train by 09.00a.m and inspite of best efforts, he could not trace out the same.  Then, he lodged a complaint with Government Railway Police, Visakhapatnam who issued a certificate on 14.02.2012 stating that the said mobile set was lost and it remained untraceable.  The Railway Police have not issued copy of FIR despite the complainant asking for the same and GRP stated that they do not issue FIR and only a non-traceable certificate is issued.  The Complainant issued a letter to the 1^st Opposite party on 30.05.2012 the same was received by the 1^st Opposite party but failed to issue any reply.  The Complainant stated that he insured his mobile against theft insurance with the 2^nd opposite party, at the time of theft of mobile policy was in existence.  The Complainant immediately, after losing his mobile, he lodged a report with GPR and also addressed letters to the Opposite parties informing about the theft of mobile and lot of correspondence also took place between the complainant and the opposite parties but the Opposite parties failed to settle the issue despite having valid theft insurance policy.  These acts of the Opposite parties clearly shows deficiency of service on their part.  The agent of the 2^nd opposite party is always available with the premises of 3^rd Opposite party and on the instructions of the 3^rd opposite party only the complainant has insured his mobile at the time of purchase, hence all the Opposite parties jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of mobile.  The Opposite parties without mentioning any reason refused to refund the amount insptie of having a valid insurance theft policy.  Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite parties;

a)     to refund the amount of Rs.15,779/- towards cost of the mobile        

b)     to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation besides costs.

2.     On the other hand, the bata was not paid by the complainant to 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties even after giving so many adjournments, hence the complaint is dismissed against Opposite parties 1 & 3. 

3.     The 2^nd Opposite party filed its counter and denied the allegations mentioned in the Complaint and pleaded that there is no cause of action to file the complaint and this opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant.  Hence the complaint against 2^nd opposite party is to be dismissed.

4.     At the time of enquiry, the complainant filed evidence affidavit along with documents which are marked as exhibits A1 to A10.  The Complainant has not filed written arguments.  On the other hand, the 2^nd opposite party filed its counter, evidence affidavit and written arguments.  No documents are marked on behalf of 2^nd opposite party.  Heard the 2^nd Opposite party in the presence of complainant’s counsel and after that no representation by the Complainant even after adjourned on costs for hearing.  Hence treated it heard for complainant. 

5.     In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, if so can the complainant entitle for the reliefs prayed for?

6.     Exhibit A1 is the cash bill dated 27.09.2011 wherein it clearly shows the cost of the mobile is Rs.15,799/-.  Ex.A2 is the Non-traceable certificate dated 14.02.2012 issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, government Railway Police Station, Visakhapatnam regarding the request made by the Complainant to trace out the lost mobile.  Ex.A3 is the letter issued by the 1^st opposite party to the Complainant on 14.02.2012 for request of required documents. Ex.A4 is the letter issued by the Complainant on 15.02.2012 to settle the claim amount.  Ex.A5 is the Claim Form given by the 2^nd opposite party and Ex.A6 & A7 are the notarized affidavits regarding missing of mobile given by the Complainant on 18.02.2012 and 12.03.2012 respectively.  Ex.A8 is the letter issued by the 1^st opposite party to the Complainant regarding production of required documents i.e., FIR under IPC Sections-379/380/382 which is not filed and due to this reason they are unable to process their claim on 06.04.2012. Ex.A9 is the letter issued by the Complainant to the Opposite party on 30.05.2012 to process his claim for insurance amount of lost insured cell phone.  Ex.A10 is the courier receipt shows that the Opposite party received the same. 

7.     The version of the complainant is that he lost his cell phone at Visakhapatnam Railway Station on 12.02.2012 and gave written complaint to GRP on the same day and in turn the concerned police made investigation to trace out the cell phone and after that they issued a Certificate on 14.02.2012 stating that after all the efforts made by them, the phone was not traced out and the certificate was issued by them for the purpose of claiming insurance policy and to obtain duplicate.  But even after so many efforts made by the complainant the Opposite party not come forward to settle the claim amount. 

8.     The main plea of the opposite party is that, though the complainant lost his mobile while in transit, he did not obtain First Information Report from Government Railway Police and the complainant submitted only the non-traceable certificate which is not sufficient for entitlement of reimbursement of cost of mobile phone.  There is not prior intimation regarding lost of cell phone.

9.     After perusal of the record filed by the Complainant, the Forum is of the view that after claim forms were issued by the Opposite party i.e., Ex.A8 the Complainant, except FIR submitted all necessary documents and after that the Complainant also issued a notice to the Opposite parties regarding the First Information Report which was required by the Opposite party.  In Ex.A9, para-4 the Complainant clearly stated that he approached the concerned policy for copy of FIR and the police informed that the procedure adopted by them for this type of incident they used to make investigation after receipt of claim given by the Complainant to trace out the lost article and issued a Certificate.

10.    It is to be noted that in Ex.A2 which is non-traceable certificate issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Government Railway Police Station, Visakhapatnam and in last para of that it is clearly states that “Hence the Certificate is issued for the purpose of obtaining Duplicate SIM and the purpose of claiming insurance of cell if any only”, evidently the Complainant informed about the lost of mobile phone to the Opposite parties and after that he approached the GRP and obtained non-traceable certificate and also submitted all the required documents to the Opposite parties, but the Opposite parties neither settle the claim amount nor repudiate it which clearly shows its deficiency in service, hence the 2^nd Opposite party being an Insurance Company is liable to pay the cost of the mobile i.e., Rs.15,799/- to the Complainant.

11.    There is no doubt, that even after having theft insurance coverage policy, the Complainant made several efforts to get the insurance amount, the Opposite parties not come forward to settle the claim amount and there is no doubt that the acts of the opposite party causes severe mental agony and financial hardship to the Complainant.  Generally any person opts for insurance policy by paying amount to safeguard his rights against unavoidable circumstances.  Likewise, the Complainant opt for theft insurance and purchased mobile, but he cannot get the fruits in time, as such the Complainant can entitle the compensation of Rs.5,000/- which would be just and proper. 

        Accordingly, the point is answered.

12.    In the result, the Complaint is allowed directing the 2^nd Opposite party to pay Rs.15,799/- to the Complainant and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.1,500/-.  Time for compliance two months from the date of receipt of order copy.  The Complaint against 1 & 3 opposite parties is dismissed with no costs. 

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 22^nd day of October, 2014.

    Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

Member                                                     President (FAC)

                                                        District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                        Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Party:

                   NIL

    Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

Member                                                     President (FAC)

                                                        District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                Visakhapatnam

//VSSKL//