Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/66/2016

Piyush Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Jatinder Singh Pessi

22 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                      Consumer Complaint No.66 of 2016

                                                            Date of institution:  06.07.2016               

                                                               Date of decision  :   22.09.2017

Piyush Singla son of Sh. Rajesh Kumar, resident of Mohalla Katehara, near Civil Hospital, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

 

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., New India Building, 87, Mahatma Gandhi road, Fort, Mumbai-400001, through its Chief Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Universal Insurance Brokers Service Private Ltd., 304, 3^rd Floor, Crescent Chambers, Tamarind lane, opposite Bombay House, Fort Mumbai, through its Proprietor.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President         

 Sh. Inder Jit, Member     

                                               

Present :        Sh. Jatinder Singh Pessi, Adv., counsel for complainant.

                      Pt. Narinder Sharma, Adv.Cl. for OP No.1.

                      Opposite Party No.2 exparte.

ORDER

By Inder Jit, Member

                      Complainant, Piyush Singla son of Sh. Rajesh Kumar, resident of Mohalla Katehara, near Civil Hospital, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   The Complainant purchased a mobile phone ASUS Zenfone-2, ZE551ml, for Rs.17,999/- after availing discount of Rs.2,000/- from Flipkart(online site) vide invoice No.#GHZ2015050004251 dated 28.05.2015. The said mobile hand set was delivered at the postal address of the complainant. The complainant also purchased an insurance policy for the said mobile phone for Rs.969/- through Amazon.in(online site) from the OPs. The policy was delivered and received at Shiva Studio, Jail road, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib and after receiving of the same, the complainant activated the said policy by registering it on the said mobile phone successfully on 02.06.2015. After getting activation, the complainant received policy No. 11170046141100016684 on his gmail account. At the time of purchasing of the said policy, the OPs gave assurance that any kind of loss or damage to the mobile hand set due to theft, accident, burglary, loss, damage due to fire, water or otherwise in any manner, will be fully compensated under the said policy.  Thereafter on 08.05.2016, when the mobile hand set was with the sister of the complainant, the mobile hand set got physically damaged as her scooty got slipped on road over the aggregates lying on the road where the construction work was in progress at Bassi Pathana.  Thereafter on 11.05.2016, the loss was intimated by the complainant to the OPs on their Phone No.022-49107910 and the OPs sent an intimation No.1600081935 to the complainant. The complainant fulfilled all the formalities as required by the OPs for the claim. But the OPs rejected the claim of the complainant by mentioning that "Cousin's claim will not be initiated". But the sister is not a cousin, she is the real sister of the complainant. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant also served a legal notice on OPs but all in vain. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.10,220/-, the estimated amount of claim of handset and other expenses borne by the complainant along with interest and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.

3.                   Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs, but OP No.2 chose not to appear to contest this complaint despite service. Hence, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte.

4.                   The complaint is contested by OP No.1, who filed the reply. In reply to the complaint, OP No.1 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague, vexatious and is completely baseless;  the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands;  the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and the complaint is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. As regards the fact of the complaint, OP No.1 stated that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  It is further stated that the complainant has mentioned in the claim form that the mobile hand set was being used by his sister. The policy is clear about the beneficiary/user and sister does not fall in that category, so the complaint of the complainant is devoid of any material facts and has been filed merely to harass and gain undue advantage and unjustified money from the OPs.  The insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                   In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, true copies of documents i.e. bill dated 28.05.2015 Ex. C-2, order receipt dated 26.05.2015 Ex. C-3, activation of policy Ex. C-4, terms and conditions Ex. C-5, copy of SMS Ex. C-6, estimate Ex. C-7, DL of complainant Ex. C-8, claim paper Ex. C-9, declaration form Ex. C-10, letter dated 25.05.2016 Ex. C-11, legal notice Ex. C-12 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Pankaj Kumar Dua as Ex. OP-1 and true copies of documents Ex.OP-2 to OP-8 and closed the evidence.

6.                   Ld. counsel for the complainant pleaded that the mobile handset was being used by the sister of the complainant and the same was damaged due to sudden accident, she met with. The insurance company was informed and required documents were submitted within time to get the claim as the mobile handset was insured. But the OPs rejected the claim on the ground that "cousin's" claim shall not be initiated. But sister is not a cousin. Hence, he pleaded that the OPs be directed to entertain/pass the claim submitted by the complainant and also to pay damages amounting to Rs.50,000/-.

7.                   The Ld. counsel for OP No.1 submitted that the claim cannot be entertained as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  He further argued that the policy Ex. OP-2 is clear about the beneficiary/user of the mobile hand set. As per the policy, spouse, children and parents can use the equipment. That is to say that sister is not included in the list of beneficiaries. The Ld. counsel pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.

8.                   We have gone through the pleadings, evidence, written submissions along with oral arguments addressed by Ld counsel for the parties. We find force in the submission made by the Ld. counsel for OP No.1. Terms and conditions are clear about the beneficiaries wherein sister is not included. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear the cost on their own.

9.         The arguments on the complaint were heard on 08.09.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 22.09.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)

President

 

(Inder Jit)    

Member