BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 30th day of June, 2005
C.D.No. 76/2005
Azas Ahamed,
S/o. Nazeer Ahmed,
R/o. H.No. 22-102,
Sagmundi Street,
Kurnool. . .. Complainant
-Vs-
National Insurance Company Ltd,
Reliance Extensious Counter Kalyan D.O,
E-Block, ground floor,
Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,
Thane Belapur Road,
Navi Mumbai. . . . opposite party
This complaint coming on 28.6.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri K.Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate for complainant and opposite party set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following
O R D E R
(As per Smt C. Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay Rs. 4,800/- with 24% interest towards costs of repair, Rs. 2,500/- towards compensation for mental agony, Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstance of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant purchase a Cell Phone of Reliance Company Model LQRd 2030 on 2.7.2003 with calling No. 314128 covered by insurance company of opposite party. On 10.4.2004 the said cell phone of the complainant accidentally fallen down and the main board of the said cell phone damaged completely. Thereafter, on 13.4.2004 the complainant repaired the said cell phone with L.G Electronics Authorised services centre, R.K/LG, CDMA at 12/A Abdulla Khan Estate, Kurnool and incurred an expenses of Rs. 4,800/- and cash bill, service slip and service sheet all originals were dispatched to opposite party for claiming reimbursement along with claim form. On 21.5.2004 the complainant received a letter from opposite party requesting the complainant to send again another
set of documents for processing and the complainant send them on 10.6.2004
and another reminder on 1.7.2004. Thereafter, got issued a lawyers notice on 12.8.2004 and opposite party gave reply on 24.8.2004 acknowledging receipt of all documents along with claim form but insisted on “ PROPER AND CORRECT DISCRIPTION OF ACCIDNET/ DAMAGE”. The complainant got issued another reply lawyers notice on 15.9.2004 stating that damages had been properly and correctly mentioned in the earlier notice to which the opposite party replied on 15.10.2004 which is the Xerox copy of earlier reply with another date. The complainant being vexed with the attitude of the opposite party finally got issued a notice on opposite party to settle the claim within 15 days and there was no reply to the said notice, which is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite party to the complainant.
3. The complainant insupport of his case filing the following documents Viz (1) Letter dt 21.5.2004 of opposite party of the complainant (2) Letter dt 23.7.2004 of the complainant to the complainant (3) letter dt 24.8.2004 of opposite party to the complainant’s counsel (4) office copy of lawyers notice dt 15.9.2004 of complainant counsel to opposite party along with post receipt No. 432 (5) letter dt 15.10.2004 of opposite party to the complainant (6) office copy of notice dt 24.10.2004 of complainant counsel to opposite party and (7) for postal acknowledgment of opposite party is to the receipt of Ex A.6, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.7 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party neither appeared before this Forum nor contested the case of the complainant by filing any written version with any defence and thereby remained exparte.
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the case of deficiency on the part of opposite party towards him entitling him for the reliefs sought:-
6. The Ex A.1 and A.2 are the letters of opposite party date 21.5.2004 and 23.7.2004, addressed to the complainant. It envisages the receipt of complainant’s claim form along with enclosures therein and it further envisages that while processing the said claim it is observed that some documents and still awaited. The A.3 is the reply of opposite party to the complainant’s counsel dt 24.8.2004, it envisages the receipt of letter dt 12.8.2004 of complainant and the claim form along with enclosures and further its requests the complainant to comply with their requirement No.1 (brief description) which is “proper and correct description of accidentally/ damage) “and for want of confirmation by complainant the claim is pending i.e serial No. 1 of their letter which was already received by the complainant.
7. The Ex A.4 is the lawyers notice issued by complainant’s counsel dt 15.9.2004 stating that damages occurred to the cell phone is due to accidental fall and there remaining nothing to be added to clearly about the exact nature of the accident and request to settle the claim of Rs. 4,800/- along with legal notice charges of Rs. 250/-. The Ex A.5 is reply of opposite party to Ex A.4 again requesting the complainant to give detailed description of the accident. The Ex A.6 is reply lawyers notice to Ex A.5 clearly mentioning the damage occurred is due to “Accidental fall”.
8. In the present, it is clear case of the complainant that his cell phone was damaged due to accidental fall and got it repaired with authorized dealer on 13.4.2004 and sent all required documents to opposite party for settling the claim, as the said cell phone is covered under Insurance. The opposite party except requesting to give proper and correct description of accident/ damage did not envisage any interest to settle the claim of the complainant. As the damage occurred to the said cell phone is due to accidental fall and there requires no “proper and correct description and accident/damage” which the opposite party was pressing for. The said request of opposite party is unnecessary for settling the claim of the complainant when it is covered under insurance. It appears that the said plea is taken by the opposite party only to avoid payment of insurance amount to the complainant. Thus, the said lapsive conduct of opposite party is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant and there by the grievances of the complainant are entertained as the complainant is a consumer and holding the liability on the opposite party for payment of Insurance amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of first Lawyer’s notice i.e 15.10.2004 and costs of Rs.500/- as the complainant was driven by the opposite party to the Forum for redressal.
9. Therefore, in the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.4,800/- towards repair charges of the cell phone with 12% interest per annum from 15.10.2004 till realization, along with RS.500/- as costs within a month of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Type to dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 30th day of June, 2005
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite party
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked
For the complainant For the opposite party
Ex A.1 Letter dt 21.5.04 of OP -Nil-
to the complainant.
Ex A.2 letter dt 23.7.2004 of OP
to the complainant.
Ex A.3 Letter dt 24.8.04 of
opposite party to the complainant.
Ex A.4 office copy of notice dt 15.9.04
of complainant’s counsel to opposite
party along with postal receipt No. 432.
Ex A.5 Letter dt 15.10.2004 of opposite
party to the complainant.
Ex A.6 office copy of notice dt 29.10.04
of complainant’s counsel to opposite party.
Ex A.7 Postal acknowledgment of opposite
party as to the receipt of Ex A.6
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
