Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/91/2016

Dinesh Kumar Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Company ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Sanjeev Abrol

06 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                      Consumer Complaint No.91 of 2016

                                                            Date of institution:  07.09.2016                                                      

                                                           Date of decision  :   06.10.2017

Dinesh Kumar Goyal aged about 44 years son of Sh. Santosh Kumar resident of Ward No.4, Near Civil Hospital Amloh,  Tehsil Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib (on behalf of his minor Lakshya Goyal)

……..Complainant

Versus

 

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., CBU 311401, 505-507, 5^th Floor Arunachal Building Barkhambha Road, New Delhi 110001.
2. Financial Heights(Gizmo Help Claims Division), 607, Kirti Shikher District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
3. Jumbo Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.217 Pavilion Mall M/s Bharti Realty Ltd., Old Session Court, Near Fountain Chowk Ludhiana-141001.
4. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bassi Road, Preet Nagar, Opposite Bank of Baroda, Sirhind-140 406(Local Office of OP No.1)

                                                                      ….Opposite parties

5. Kochar Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Nidhi-2 Lawrence Road Amritsar- Punjab 143001.
6. TVS Electronics Ltd., 1^st Floor Ansal Plaza, Opposite Circuit House, Ferozpur Road, Ludhiana.

….. Proforma 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. Sanjeev Abrol, Adv., counsel for complainant.

                      Sh. S.R.Sharma, Adv.Cl. for OPs No.1 and 4.

                      OP No.2 exparte.

                      Opposite parties No.3,5 &6 are proforma parties.

ORDER

By Inder Jit, Member

                           Complainant, Dinesh Kumar Goyal aged about 44 years son of Sh. Santosh Kumar resident of Ward No.4, Near Civil Hospital Amloh,  Tehsil Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib (on behalf of his minor Lakshya Goyal), 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 hand set HTC Desire 826 along with its insurance cover(Gizmo Secure Ultra) from OP No.3, vide bill No.4766 dated 26.04.2015 amounting to Rs.26,899/-, which is in the name of his son Lakshya Goyal. At the time of purchase of mobile and insurance cover, it was assured by OP No.3 that in case of damage and loss of mobile in any manner, the complainant can claim full amount or cost of repair of mobile, if any.  Thereafter on 07.01.2016, while driving a bike, the said mobile hand set fell down accidently from the pocket of his son and due to this, the LCD as well as back panel of the mobile hand set was broken. As per the terms of insurance policy, the complainant immediately contacted with OP No.1 & 2 and fulfill all the formalities as required by the OPs. The complainant completed all the documentation within time. Thereafter, on the instructions of OP No.2, the complainant got the mobile hand set repaired from authorized service centre TVS Electronics Ltd., Ludhiana and spent more than Rs.8,000/- for repair of the said mobile hand set.  The complainant also obtained quotation before repairing the mobile hand set and the same was sent to OP No.2 alongwith documents. But OPs No.1 & 2 repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant. The complainant also served legal notice on the OPs but all in vain.  The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.8,000/- spent by the complainant on the repair of the mobile hand set and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental tension, pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.

3.                   Notice of the complaint was issued to OPs No.1, 2 and 4 only as the complainant has made a statement that he does not claim anything from OPs No.3,5 and 6 and they be treated as proforma parties. OP No.2 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OP No.2 was proceeded against  exparte.

4.                   The complaint is contested by OPs No. 1 & 4, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint they raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, frivolous, vexatious, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be dismissed; no cause of action arose to the complainant against OPs No. 1 & 4 to file the present complaint and the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. As regards the facts of the complaint, OPs No. 1 & 4 stated that the son of the complainant, namely; Laksya Goyal was minor at the time of purchase of the mobile hand set in question and was also minor when he was driving the bike on 07.01.2016, which is against the law of the land. Laksya Goyal was negligent in handling the mobile and the said mobile fell down while driving the bike due to his negligence. Since the mobile hand set fell down due to negligence of the son of the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get any claim.  It is further stated that the complainant prematurely got the mobile handset repaired without the OPs having provided the authorization in terms of the insurance policy. The damaged device is required to be taken to the authorized service centre and an estimate of repair is required to be obtained and sent to the insurance company. The claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated 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, OPs No.1 & 4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                   In order to prove his case, the complainant  tendered in evidence true copies of documents i.e. invoice Ex. C-1, mobile message Ex. C-2, quotation Ex. C-3, HTC repair report Ex. C-4, retail tax invoice Ex. C-5, advance slip Ex. C-6, email Ex. C-7, legal notice Ex. C-8, original postal receipt Ex. C-9 to C-12, reply to legal notice Ex. C-13, booklet of Gizmo Control Ex. C-14, true copy of service report Ex. C-15, true copy of claim form Ex. C-16, his affidavit Ex. C-17 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OPs No. 1 & 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of S.S.Manchanda Deputy Manager Ex. OP-1, copy of claim form Ex. OP-2, copy of claim note Ex. OP-3, copy of auto generated receipt Ex. OP-4, copy of auto generated letter regarding repudiation of claim Ex. OP-5,  copy of letter regarding repudiation Ex. OP-6, note by the company Ex. OP-7, copy of notice Ex. OP-8,  copy of reply to notice Ex. OP-9,  copy of terms and condition of the insurance policy Ex. OP-10, covering letter Ex. OP-11 and closed the evidence.

6.                   Ld. counsel for the complainant pleaded that the mobile handset in question was in the name of the son of the complainant, namely; Mr. Lakshya Goyal, who was driving a bike and while driving the bike the said mobile handset fell down from his pocket accidently. Consequently LCD and back panel of the hand set got broken.  OPs No. 1 and 2 were contacted immediately and as per their instructions, all documentation for the claim was completed and sent to them. On the assurance of OPs, complainant got the handset repaired from the authorized service centre i.e. TVS Electronics Ltd. Ludhiana and spent more than Rs.8000/-. He had collected the quotation also as per the terms of the policy and the same was sent to OP No.2 alongwith other documents. Inspite of all this, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OPs. A legal notice was also served on the OPs but in vain. Therefore, there is gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, he pleaded that OPs be directed to pay Rs.8000/- i.e. cost of repair of the handset and Rs.25,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant.

7.                   Ld. counsel for OP No.1 & 4 pleaded that the mobile handset got damaged only because of the carelessness of Lakshya Goyal, son of the complainant, because he is minor and does not know how to handle the device.  He further added that the minor son of the complainant was driving the bike which is also against the law of the land. Further he pleaded that the purchaser Lakshya Goyal has not filed the complaint, rather his father has filed it which is again contrary to the norms. He further pleaded that the claim has to be lodged/processed as per the terms and conditions of the policy. As per terms and conditions of the policy Ex. OP-10, the damaged device was required to be taken to the authorized service centre for getting an estimate of repair and the same was to be sent to the Insurance Company for getting authorization to repair the device. The relevant portion of the clause is reproduced as under:-

For Damage Claims:"The equipment is to taken to Authorised Service Centre only and Estimate of repair to be obtained first and sent to GizmoHelp Centre. In case the Damage occurs within 5 days of Insurance or if the repair estimate if over Rs.25,000/- surveyor would be appointed by the insurer".

                      But the complainant did not adhere to the said conditions of the policy and got the device repaired prematurely on his own. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 4. Ld. counsel pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.

8.                   We have gone through the pleadings, evidence, written submissions alongwith oral arguments addressed by the Ld. counsel for the parties. We find force in the submission made by the Ld. counsel for OPs No.1 & 4. There is a clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as pleaded by the Ld. counsel for the OPs. The purchaser himself has not lodged the complaint also. In view of the foregoing discussion/ pleadings, the present complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

9.         The arguments on the complaint were heard on 22.09.2017 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: 06.10.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)

President

 

(Inder Jit)       ‘

Member