Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/896/2012

Vipon Kumar S/o Karnesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Tarun Rohila

02 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No. 896 of 2012

                                                                                    Date of institution: 21.08.2012  

                                                                                    Date of decision: 02.06.2017

 

 

Vipon Kumar aged about 35 years, son of Shri Karnesh Kumar, resident of House No. 88 Usha Street, Govt. School Road, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                     …Complainant.

                                                            Versus

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Divn. Office New Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar through its branch Manager.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Office: 3, Middleton Street, Post Box no.9229, Kolkata through Managing Director.

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                     …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND……………… MEMBER

 

Present:           Shri  Tarun Rohila, Advocate for complainant.

                       Shri Karnesh Sharma, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     The present complaint has been under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter respondent will be referred as OPs).  .

2.                     Brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant got insured his household goods, refrigerator, TV Set and Baggage, including LCD Samsung TV 40” (hereinafter referred as LCD) vide policy bearing No. 422100/48/11/3600000349 with effect from 26.08.2011 to 25.08.2012 from addressee no. 1 for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1738/- towards premium. During the terms of policy, the LCD which the complainant had purchased in the year, 2010 for Rs.55000/- and which was insured with the OPs Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.55,000/-, went out of order in second week of April, 2012. Upon it, the complainant lodged complaint with authorized service centre of Samsung on 18.04.2012 and after 15/20 days mechanic came who inspected the LCD and could not find the fault and then company mechanic came who after checking the LCD disclosed that the defective Panel of the LCD to be replaced and the same is of Rs.20800/- of which estimate was got prepared by the complainant from the Samsung Dealer on 06.06.2012 and after that the complainant submitted the application on 19.06.2012 along with copies of the LCD purchase bill, insurance copy, estimate bill etc. with the request to appoint surveyor and do the needful. After one week, Surveyor of OPs came to the house of the complainant and took 4-5 photographs and he admitted that the panel of the LCD is defective. It has been further mentioned that the surveyor was expecting some gratification from the complainant which the complainant did not please him. Resultantly, on that fake report of surveyor, the OPs vide impugned letter dated 01.08.2012 have repudiated the claim of the complainant on absolutely baseless and misconceived grounds. Lastly, prayed for direct the OPs to pay cost of repair as per estimate issued by the service centre of Samsung India Private Limited and also to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical torture and also to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation etc.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement jointly taking some preliminary objection such as complaint is not maintainable; this forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain and adjudicate the present complaint; complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and it is further stated that on receiving the intimation regarding the alleged loss, the OP immediately registered the claim and deputed Mr. Ashok Kumar Sood, Automobile Engineer, Surveyor and Loss Assessor for assessing the loss who had submitted his report dated 31.07.2012 with the OPs mentioning therein that: -

“On detailed inspection of LCD during survey and its inspection in presence of service engineer of M/s. Samsung India Ltd., the LCD was found in perfect working condition except that half of the picture of left side of panel was giving slightly dim shade of colour then the right half portion of panel, so the insured LCD never sustained breakdown as it is still in working condition except above fault.

It has been further mentioned that as per observation of service engineer of Samsung India Limited, the fault in panel of LCD has been developed as some of its Pixel’s of LCD developed fault during normal working of the LCD panel. The fault of the panel of LCD cannot be termed as BREAKDOWN, whereas as per policy conditions only mechanical or electrical breakdown is covered. The fault to insured LCD is due to manufacturing defect, which is not covered under the scope of policy, for which manufacturer or supplier of LCD is liable. Further, it has been mentioned that as per report of service engineer of Samsung the insured lodged complaint on toll free number of Samsung regarding reported fault in the LCD on dated 18.04.2012 and whereas the insured has stated in claim form that the LCD sustained damage on dated 01.06.2012 whereas the intimation to the underwriters office was given by insured on dated 19.06.2012 which is gross misrepresentation of facts another violation of policy condition and on merit all the contents of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objection and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of the complaint as Annexure CX, photocopy of insurance policy/ cover note as Annexure C-1 and C-2, photocopy of estimate of repair dated 06.06.2012 as Annexure C-3, photocopy of intimation of claim as Annexure C-4, photocopy of repudiation letter dated 01.08.2012 as Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complaint.

5.                     On the other hand learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Parveen Arora, Administrative Officer, NIC as Annexure RW/A and affidavit of Shri Ashok Kumar Sood as Annexure RW/B, photocopy of Repudiation Letter dated 01.08.2012 as Annexure R-1, photocopy of cover note as Annexure R-2, photocopy of insurance policy as Annexure R-3, photocopy of intimation letter of 19.06.2012 as Annexure R-4, photocopy of Surveyor Report dated 31.07.2012 as Annexure R-5, photocopy of claim Forum as Annexure R-6, photocopy of letter dated 25.07.2012 as Annexure R-7, photocopy of letter dated 30.07.2012 as Annexure R-8, photocopy of terms and condition as Annexure R-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only grievance of the complainant is that claim lodged on account of breakdown of the LCD which was insured with the OPs Insurance Company, has been wrongly and illegally repudiated as “No Claim” by the OPs Insurance Company on the false and flimsy ground which is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards copy of estimate (Annexure C-3) issued by Engineer of Samsung company amounting Rs.21,800/- and argued that as the LCD in question was insured with the OPs Insurance company, So, the complainant is entitled to get the said amount from the OPs Insurance.

8.                     Whereas, on the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs Insurance Company argued at length that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor in his report (Annexure R-5) has opined that fault does not fall under the mechanical/electrical breakdown so, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OPs Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the OPs Insurance company draw our attention towards the Surveyor Report dated 31.07.2012 (Annexure R-5) and report of Service Engineer of Samsung India Private Limited dated 30.07.2012 (Annexure R-8) and argued that from both the reports it is clearly evident that there was no mechanical or electrical breakdown in the LCD in question of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that as per claim Form submitted by the complainant (Annexure R-6), the alleged loss/damage was occurred on 01.06.2012 but the intimation was given to the OP insurance Company on 19.06.2012 which is duly evident from the copy of intimation letter (Annexure R-4) which violate the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy particularly Condition No1. Learned counsel for the OPs further draws our attention towards the letter dated 30.07.2012 (Annexure R-8) in which it has been disclosed by the Service Engineer of the Samsung India Private Limited that complainant Vipon Kumar had already lodged the complaint bearing No.8421921301 on dated 18.04.2012 regarding the LCD in question, so as per this letter also the alleged loss/damage if any had occurred on 18.04.2012 or prior to this and version of the complainant that alleged loss/damage occurred on 01.06.2012 clearly shows that complainant has manipulated the things just to extract the money from the OPs Insurance Company. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs Insurance Company as the complainant has totally failed to prove that there was any mechanical or electrical breakdown in the LCD in question. The complainant has only placed on file estimate (Annexure C-3) issued by the Samsung India Limited and except this one no bill or invoice vide which he got repaired the LCD in question either from the Samsung or any other Service Centre, has been placed on file. Even, the complainant has also not placed on file any expert report or any affidavit of any Service Engineer or any mechanic to prove that LCD in question was having any mechanical/electrical breakdown and in the absence of any cogent evidence, this Forum is enable to hold that the claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated by the OPs Insurance Company. Further, as per Section 13)1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, which is reproduced here as under:

            Procedure on admission of complaint;

 

            “Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods; the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum”.

10.                   In the present case, complainant has neither moved any application for appointment of any local Commissioner nor has placed on file any report of Mechanic or any Service Engineer to prove that the LCD in question had become defective due to any mechanical/electrical breakdown and in the absence of any cogent evidence, we are enable to held that the complainant is entitled to get any relief.

11.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above we are of the considered view that complainant has totally failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court

Dated: 02.06.2017.

 

 

		(ASHOK KUMAR GARG) PRESIDENT,DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR.
(VEENARANI SHEOKAND) MEMBER		(S.C.SHARMA) MEMBER