Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/3/2016

Joga Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Neeru Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.         :     3 of 06.01.2016

Date of Decision:                    :     01.06.2016

Joga Singh son of Surinder Singh R/o Village Haridan, Tehsil & District Nawanshahr.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1. Neeru Electronics, 1-4-13-18-19, Sanjay Gandhi Market, B.M.C. Chowk, Jalandhar, Contact No.9872444235.
2. New India Assurance Company Limited, Building 87, MG. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400001, Maharashtra.

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

MRS.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

For complainant                      :         In person.

For OPs                                   :         Ex parte.

 

ORDER

MRS.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

1.       In brief the case of the complainant is that he alongwith his relative Gurwinder Singh S/o Sh. Nirmal Singh, R/o Village Rurki, District Jalandhar went to Op. No. 1 and had purchased the mobile set of make Model D 2212/Xperia E3/White for Rs.11,000/- vide bill No. 96 dated 26.01.2015. The Op. No.1 got the said mobile set insured under group insurance for Rs.999/-. The OP No.1 neither disclosed the name of the insurance company nor got his signatures on the policy documents nor had given any insurance policy documents, but the OP No.1 after receipt of Rs.999/- had issued a bill of Biscuit Currency.  At the time of insurance of the said mobile it was told to him that the insurance company is liable to indemnify him if it gets stolen, is lost, gets broken or for any other loss. On 27.11.2015, he lost his said mobile at Mukandpur, District Nawanshahr and he has lodged the DDR No. 1012078 dated 28.11.2015 at Suvidha Centre, Mukandpur. On 22.12.2015, he informed the OP-1 that he had lost his mobile set and submitted the requisite documents with it and also made a request for payment of claim amount but he did not receive any amount inspite of the fact that at the time of issuance of insurance, the OP No.1 had told him in the presence of his relative namely Gurwinder Singh S/o Sh.Nirmal Singh that claim amount would be paid within seven days, from the date of occurrence of incidence for which the mobile set has been insured for. The OPs by not paying the claim amount have committed deficiency in service.  Due to said act of OPs, complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony.  Therefore, OPs be directed to pay the claim amount or in alternative provide new mobile set to him.  They be also directed to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses.

2.       On being put to notice Op No.1 appeared and filed written version on 18.02.2016, stating there in that OP No.1 is doing the business of selling various mobile sets.  At the time of purchase of said mobile set, it was made clear to the complainant that insurance plan was free with the application.  It was also made clear to him that in case of loss or damage, he has to intimate the insurance company with 48 hours.  In the complaint, it is mentioned that phone was lost on 27.11.2015 but complainant submitted the documents on 22.12.2015 i.e. after more than one month from the occurrence of incidence.   Since, by way of filing this complaint, the complainant is claiming amount which has to be paid by the insurance company and not by OP No.1.  Complainant has erroneously dragged the OP No.1.  Therefore, the complaint be dismissed with cost. 

3.       Despite service, none has appeared on behalf of Op No.2 and it was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 31.03.2016.

4.       On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, copy of police report dated 28.11.2015 Ex.C-1 and copy of retail invoice Ex.C-2 (2 pages) and closed the evidence.

5.       OP No.1 has failed to lead evidence, because from 20.04.2016 conjunctively for five dates, none has appeared on its behalf and accordingly, it was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 12.05.2016.

6.       We have heard the complainant and also gone the record carefully.

7.       From the retail invoice Ex.C-2, it is clear that complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP No.1 – Neeru Electronics situated at Jalandhar.  As per the version of the complainant, the said mobile got insured by Neeru Electronics situated at Jalandhar i.e. OP No.1 with New India Assurance Company, Mumbai (Maharashtra) i.e. OP No.2. Thus, it is clear that the said mobile set got insured at Jalandhar only. Merely because, the said mobile was lost within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum will not entitle the complainant to seek redressal from this Forum because as per section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaint can only be filed within the local limits of District Forum in whose jurisdiction, the OP is doing business or any cause of action has arisen.  But in the present case neither the OPs are doing their business nor any cause of action has arisen against them within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  In the case of Raj Kumar Dhiman Vs M/s Trehan Automotives Pvt Ltd & Anr, 2013 © CLT 40 (NC) passed by the Hon’ble National Commission and in the case of M/s Stan Auto Pvt Ltd Vs Beant Singh passed by Hon’ble State Commission Punjab in FA No.881 of 2012 decided on 30.09.2013.  In the above said judgment the view taken by the Hon’ble Courts/Commissions are that jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of actual residential, business and working place of opposite party.  Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, we dispose of the complaint, with liberty to the complainant to avail remedy before the appropriate court or any other appropriate Forum, for redressal of his grievance and to seek condonation of delay, for the period, his complaint remained pending in this Forum, as permissible under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.

8.       The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Dated:  01.06.2016

 

                                                                                                                                                                        (NEENA SANDHU)

                                                          President

 

                                                          

                                                          (KANWALJEET SINGH)

                                                          Member