Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                Complaint No. : 327.

                                                Instituted on     : 01.06.2017.

                                                Decided on       : 22.01.2019.

Arun Dhankhar, age 23 years, son of Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Resident of village Karontha, Tehsil & District Rohtak, Mb. No.,9416764015.

                                                                    ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak through Branch Manager/Incharge.

……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.

                   SH.VED PAL HOODA, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Tarun Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. R.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that on 14.12.2015, complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile phone, model No. A-5 bearing IMEI No. 359932063557624 from Rohtak vide invoice no.12682 for Rs.20,000/- and the same was insured with the respondent vide policy No. 95000046151100000001 on the same day and paid an amount of Rs.1,000/- as insurance premium and the said phone was got insured for all types of damages. On 05.12.2016, the said mobile phone fell down on the road from the pocket of the complainant and the same was completely damaged and it is not in a position of repair. The complainant intimated the officials of the OP vide claim No.D53501821571. It is further alleged that the said phone is within insurance period, but the OP rejected his lawful claim. That the act of opposite party of repudiating the alleged claim amount is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. As such, it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay amount of Rs.20,000/- as the cost of insured mobile phone and also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and  litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has denied that the said mobile was insured by above mentioned policy and the complainant paid Rs.1,000/- as premium. It is further denied that the said phone was not insured for all types of damages. It is further submitted that the said mobile was not within insurance period and the OP is not bound to pay the insurance claim and as such prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 10.08.2018. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/1 and thereafter OP had failed to conclude his evidence despite last opportunity, hence, evidence of OP was closed by court order on 07.01.2019.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the opposite party, the intimation was given to the insurance company belatedly. As per the complainant himself the loss occurred on 05.12.2016 and the claim intimation was given in the company on 20.12.2016 which is placed on record as Ex.C3. The terms and conditions of the policy Ex.C4 itself shows that: “In case of an incident (accidental damage or theft) has been occurred in that situation, the claim should be registered with the insurance company within 48 hours  but in the present case the intimation was given belatedly i.e. after 15 days. Moreover the complainant has not placed on record any report to prove that the mobile set of the complainant was badly damaged. In this way, we are unable to consider that the mobile set was in damaged condition. Moreover intimation was given belatedly which is also against the terms and conditions of the policy.

6.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

8.                          File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

22.01.2019.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.