Delhi

East Delhi

CC/785/2015

JAI SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASS. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Dec 2018

ORDER

                         CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer Complaint no.        785 / 2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  08/10/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 03/12/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          05/12/2018  In matter of

Mr. Jai Sharma,  adult       

s/o-Sh Prem Dutta Sharma

R/o –A-120, Chawla Colony,  

Ballabhgarh, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana ..………..…………….Complainant

                                                                   

                                                                     Vs

1-The Manager,

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Co.   

10^th Floor, Scope Minar,

Preet Vihar, Delhi 110092

 

2- The Manager,    

Range Teleservices,

K-17, LF, Alankar Road, Lajpat Nagar-2 , New Delhi

 

3-The Manager,

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd

Plot no. 51, Surajpur, Kasana Road,   

Noida Ughyog Vihar, Greater Noida, UP……...…………..……….Opponents

 

Complainant’ Advocate                     Mr Praveen Maheshwari

Opponent 1-Advocate                       Md. Vandana Surana

Opponent 2-Advocate                       Nemo

Opponent 3-Advocate                       K. K. Tirthani

                                                

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case  -

Complainant purchased LG (OP3) mobile handset having IMEI 58240054334529 on 25/04/2014 for a sum of Rs 28500/- vide invoice no. R/825 (Ex CW1/1). The hand set was insured by “OP1/The New India Assurance Co. through OP2 M/s Range Teleservices after paying Rs 1700/-. The said mobile had very low incoming signals as a defect, so was taken to OP2/service centre and new hand set vide IMEI 58240054334529 on 27/04/2014 (Ex CW1/1B&C). The said handset was lost in the market on 07/06/2014, so police complaint was done (Ex CW1/1D). Thereafter claim was lodged after completing all the required documents to OP1 vide Ex CW1/3 on 10/06/2014, but claim was repudiated by OP1. So complainant suffered huge financial loss and mental agony. Where no claim was passed by OP1, filed this complaint and claimed sum of Rs 28,500/- with 3% interest and compensation Rs one Lacs and litigation charges Rs 50,000/-.

OP 1 submitted written statement, but neither OP2 nor OP3 submitted their written statement and evidences despite of serving repeatedly, so preceded Ex Parte. OP1 stated that complainant purchased handset on 25/04/2018 vide IMEI no. 352136069837900 which was insured by OP1 vide policy no. 670302/46/13/24/00000004. As the first/ insured hand set was replaced by the seller/OP2 on 27/04/2014, so the replaced handset vide IMEI no. 358240054334529 was not insured with OP1.

It was stated that OP1 had issued policy to APPSDAILY Solutions Pvt Ltd which was neither a necessary party nor had any contract with complainant. The main po0licy issued to APPS DAILY was 670320/46/13/124/00000008 for 12 months under specific terms and conditions (Ex OPW1/1) which covered all the types of damages like Theft, Burglary, Physical damages and Fluid damages for the invoice values, but here replaced handset was not covered under any policy terms and conditions.  It was specifically stated that OP1 had covered first mobile having IMEI 352136069837900 and not the replaced one which had different IMEI. Hence, the said complaint may be dismissed.

Complainant filed his rejoinder and denied all the replies submitted by OP1 and stated that his all the facts were correct as per his complaint. He also filed his evidences by way of affidavit of himself and reaffirmed on oath that OP1 had intentionally repudiated his claim on the basis of evidences on record. As his hand set got theft, but police had lodged wrong report of missing. The hand set was insured for full value. So his claim be considered and handset amount be paid with interest and compensation.  

OP1 filed their evidence through affidavit of Md Kavita Jain, Accounts Officer with OP1 and stated in her affidavit that the said handset was neither insured nor had any contract with complainant as sole policy was issued to APPSDAILY Solutions Pvt Ltd. There was no evidence ever produced by complainant which could prove that the mobile was ever insured by OP1.   

It was stated that complainant’s first handset was insured by DAILY ASSURE PLUS through OP2, but OP1 had neither issued any policy to OP2 under DAILY ASSURE PLUS, so OP1 was neither responsible for passing any claim nor had any deficiency in their service. So this complaint may be dismissed.    

Arguments were heard from OP1 through their counsel, but complainant did not put his appearance on the date of arguments and even on earlier dates of proceedings. After perusal of materials on record, order was reserved.  

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was observed that complainant has not filed required documents pertaining to claim from OP1. There was no evidence on record from where it could be established deficiency of OP1. Complainant had not mentioned correct and true facts in his complaint about replacement of his defective handset. Once the defective hand set was replaced by new one within two days of its purchase, second mobile facts were narrated, but in absence of insurance from OP1, cannot be said that the second handset was also insured by OP1. In absence of any evidence for OP1, we cannot fasten any liability on any OP1 and as there was no evidence of manufacturing defect, so OP3 is also exempted from any liability. Thus this complaint has no merits and that being so; complaint deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without any direction or cost.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 ( in short CPR)  and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of CPR.

(Dr) P N Tiwari –Member                                                                      Mrs Harpreet Kaur – Member

                                                               Sukhdev Singh  President