DOF.17.7.2007 DOO.1.11.2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 1st day of November 2010 C.C.No.132/2007 Ravi Gupta, V.K.Complex, Fort Road, Kannur. Complainant National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kalyan D.O Reliance Extension counter, Block Ground Floor, Dhirubhai Amban Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai. Opposite party O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari This is a complaint field under section12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.6197.80 as repair charge and Rs.2500/- towards cost and damages. The case of the complainant is that he is a consumer of Reliance mobile connection having No.0497 3103111. The complainant had obtained the above connection on 5.8.03 and was utilized for colour up gradation scheme on 26.8.04 and accordingly LGRD was activated and the handset LGRD 2030 was insured with the opposite party. The handset was not switched on 26.11.05 and was carried out to the authorized work shop and they informed that the SMT main has gone defective with some other problems and required replacement. The repair was carried out for an amount of Rs.1355.80 and the complainant has lodged a claim before the opposite party on 16.12.05 along with documents including repair bill. Even though the opposite party has acknowledged the receipt of claim form they have not considered the same in spite of several reminders. The complainant had an earlier claim dated 5.4.05 for Rs.4, 842/- which is also pending before opposite party. The complaint had informed the description of the handset damaged and produced the original invoice cum cash receipt as per the demand of opposite party on 10.8.05. Even though the complainant had issued registered letter to the opposite party to settle the above claim, they were not ready to settle the claim. So the opposite party is liable to pay an amount of Rs.6197.80 towards the claim to the complainant. Hence this compliant. Upon receiving the notice from the Forum opposite party had appeared and filed their version stating that the complainant is not a consumer and he has no locustandi to file complaint against the opposite party and the complaint is not maintainable because there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complainant must be put to strict proof regarding the ownership of the mobile set, the insurance of the same with the opposite party for the period for which the damage was caused, the steps taken by the complainant to surrender the set to the dealer or the opposite party before repairing the same. According to the opposite party, the complainant has no right to repair the insured article without the knowledge and written consent of opposite party. In the event if the insured article is damaged during the period of insurance. Policy, the insured is bound to intimate regarding the damage and has to surrender the handset before the authorized service centre for repairing the same. The complainant cannot get the set repaired first and then make claim for repair charge. So the complainant has committed breach of the norms of the insurance laws and the conditions pertaining to the insurance policy. So the complainant is not entitled to claim for any amount as reimbursement. Regarding the complaint and repair on 5.4.05 also the complainant had not informed to the opposite party the damage immediately or within the prescribed time after the damage was noticed to the set. The complainant had not surrendered the handset before the opposite party or any authorized service center for repairing the set, which the complainant is specifically bound to do before repairing the insured article as per the norms and conditions of the policy. So the complainant cannot attribute any kind of deficiency of service from the part of opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether the complainant has any locus standi and whether the Forum has territorial jurisdiction? 2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10. Issue No.1 The opposite party contended that the Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case and the complainant has no right as per the contract of Insurance to make a claim from opposite party directly. According to opposite party, the complainant had purchased the mobile phone from Mumbai and the same was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai and hence the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai or Palakkad from where the set repaired have only jurisdiction to try the case. Under the Act, the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum would be determined on the basis of actually or voluntarily residence of the opposite party’s or at place where registered office or branch office of business concern or manufacturer is situated or at place where the opposite parties personally works for gain or carry on business or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. In this case the opposite party has branches of business concern at Kannur District which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence the Forum has ample jurisdiction to try the case. Yet another contention of the opposite party is that since the contract of insurance is with the Reliance mobile company, the complainant has no right as per the contract of Insurance to make a claim from opposite party. It is the admitted case of opposite party that they have issued master policy to the Reliance mobile company and as per the Insurance certificate, the insurance company has to indemnify the user of handset of Reliance mobile during 3 years from the date of delivery if any loss or partial loss had occurred . So it is seen that the complainant is a beneficiary because the complainant had acquired a reliance mobile set and as per the act, a beneficiary is also a consumer. So from the above discussion we re of the opinion that the Forum has ample jurisdiction to try the case and the complainant is a consumer and hence the issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant. The case of the complainant is that his Reliance mobile handset which was purchased on 5.8.03 became disfunctioning on two occasion during 2005, and was repaired by him through the authorized service centers and submitted two claim applications before opposite party for refund of repair charge the opposite party is not ready to refund the same. In order to prove his case he was examined as PW1 and produced Ext.A1 to A10 such as copy of registered letter to opposite party, dt.16.12.05, reminder dt.19.6.06, letter dt.5.4.05 with claim form, copy of lawyer notice, salient features of the master policy, requirement letter of opposite party, letter dt.2.9.05, invoice dt.2.12.05, reminder letter and parts sales list dated 23.3.05. No documents and witness were produced on the part of opposite party. The opposite party contended that the complainant had already received reimbursement of the repair charges from opposite party through the Reliance mobiles. The opposite party further contended that the complainant has no right to repair the insured article without the knowledge and consent of opposite party and if the insured article is damaged during the period of policy the insured is bound to intimate regarding the damage and has to surrender the handset before the authorized service centre and hence the complainant cannot choose to get the set repaired first and then to claim for repair charges. But the opposite party has not produced the policy condition or policy in order to prove this contention of the opposite party. But the complainant has produced Ext.A1 i.e. Insurance certificate. As per this certificate the claim procedure is shown as “ All partial loss claims for repairs to be settled based on the paid repair bills of the authorized service centers and completed claim form signed by the user and payment to be made directly to the insured – user. So it is seen that the above contention forwarded by the opposite party is not correct and what was done by the complainant is correct. More over the opposite party has no case that the mobile phone was repaired from unauthorized service centers. The Ext.A8 shows that the set was repaired on 2.12.05 for an amount of Rs.1355.80 and A10 shows that the complainant had purchased main board by giving Rs.4852.13 on 23.3.05.Ext.A7 shows that the opposite party had discharged another claim of the complainant of Rs.1470/-. So from the above discussion it is seen that the complainant had follows prescribed system for lodging claim. The complainant had produced condensed claim form together with service sheet, purchase bill of replaced part etc. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency on the part of opposite party in discharging the claim for which the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant by giving the total amount incurred by the complainant for repairing ie.Rs.6198/- along with Rs.1000/- as cost of this proceedings and the complainant is entitled to receive the same and order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.6198/-(Rupees Six thousand One hundred and Ninety eight only) along with Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.to 3.Copies of the letter sent by complainant to OP A4.Copy of the lawyer notice dt.24.8.05 sent to OP. A5.Copy f the features of the master policy issued by OP A6 & 7.Letter dt.8.7.05 and 2.9.05 sent by OP A8.Copy of the retail invoice issued by Domain info systems A9.Copy of the letter sent to OP A10.Part Sales list of Akbar Mobiles, Palakkad dt.23.3.05. Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
