Delhi

East Delhi

CC/805/2015

MANOJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA INS - Opp.Party(s)

20 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  805/15

 

Shri Manoj Jain

R/o A-10, Guru Ram Dass Nagar

Top Floor, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                    ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Digital Solutions

72-A, Vijay Block

Near Hira Sweeta, Main Vikas Marg

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. New India Assurance Company Limited

Hemkunt House, Rajender Place

New Delhi                                                                        …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 13.10.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 20.09.2017

Judgment Passed on: 21.09.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Manoj Jain against Digital Solutions (OP-1) and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  . 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a Sony Xperia E3 mobile for a sum of Rs. 11,750/- on 10.12.2014 from Digital Solutions (OP-1) and insured from New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2).  This mobile was stolen on 07.02.2015 for which FIR No. 283/2015 was got registered.  Complainant gave information alongwith documents, to the respondent and he was shocked when the respondent repudiated his claim.  Thus, it has been stated that there was deficiency on the part of OP, for which he has claimed an amount of Rs. 11,750, the cost of mobile; Rs. 50,000/- compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 21,000/- as cost of litigation.   

3.       In the reply, filed on behalf of Digital Solutions (OP-1), they have stated that they were just the reseller of mobile protection plan of M/s. App Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and they have no right to provide any after sale support to their customers.

          In the reply of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2), they have stated that they have issued Package Insurance Policy to M/s. Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd. from 01.02.2014 to 31.01.2016 vide policy no. 67030246132400000008.  In the said policy, complainant have failed to show that the said mobile handset was covered.  The complainant has not filed any document to show that the mobile handset was covered under the said policy. 

          They have further stated that IMEI number in the bill and in the FIR were different.  The complainant informed the Insurance Company on 20.05.2015, which was about two months’ delay.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.       In support of its complaint, complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit and have narrated the facts stated in the complaint. 

          No evidence has been filed by OP-1 and OP-2.

6.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of Insurance Company that there was difference of IMEI number in FIR as well as in the bill. 

          On the other hand, counsel for complainant have argued that it may be wrong mentioning of IMEI number.  To ascertain this, a look has to be made to the copy of FIR as well as the bill issued by Digital Solutions (OP-1).  In the bill, issued by Digital Solutions, IMEI number has been shown as 355289062230305, whereas in the FIR, IMEI no. has been shown as 355289063651723.  A bare perusal of these two documents show that there has been difference of IMEI number.  When there has been difference in IMEI number, the rejection of claim by the Insurance Company on this ground was justified.

          Not only that, from the documents placed on record, it is also noticed that date of incident has been 07.02.2015 and date of FIR has been 07.02.2015, whereas the claim has been lodged on 20.05.2015.  Even there has been delay in informing to the Insurance Company.  The rejection of the claim by the Insurance Company on the ground of difference in IMEI number was sufficient even if the delay has been ignored.  Therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of Insurance Company.  Thus, the complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.    

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                   President