Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/115

Deepak Kumar Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

21 Apr 2022

ORDER

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. for replacement of Mobile Cell Phone or payment of Rs. 12,700/- (purchase price of the cell phone) with 18% interest or for payment of Rs. 6000/- for repair of the damaged cell phone with 18% interest to him.
2.  Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased GIONEE F103 PRO cell phone with insurance on Rs. 12,700/- having EMEI No. as mentioned in the complaint petition. At the time of purchase insurance of the cell phone was done by the shopkeeper vide policy ID-IRN 541740 having policy No. 95000046161100000001. Further case is that on 14.04.2017 at about 10:01 A.M. the cell phone of the complainant broken due to accident for which intimation to the O.P. No.1 was given instantly and inspite of repeated requests O.P. No.1 has rejected the claim on flimsy grounds hence complainant issued a notice having no impact, then case has been filed.
3.   O.P. No.1 appeared and has filed W.S. mentioning therein that YMS MOBITECH PRIVATE LIMITED has entered into an agreement with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for Insurance of its products  vide master policy No. 95000046161100000001 covering the risk related to products in which cell phone in dispute was also covered. It is said that facts of the case are showing that cell phone has not been damaged due to road accident because external parts of the motor cycle were found intact, hence claim has been denied. Though W.S. is bulky but in short there is denial of the claim accepting the policy coverage to the cell phone concerned.
4. Now question for determination is whether denial of the claim by the O.P. No.1 is justified or not ?  and whether complainant is entitled to get any relief ?
5.   It is admitted fact that product purchased by the complainant was covering with the insurance Policy No. 95000046161100000001 issued by the O.P. No.1 in favour of YMS MOBITECH PRIVATE LIMITED.
6.   Further it is not in dispute that the complainant has purchased said cell phone on Rs. 12,700/- from the shop of O.P. No.2 on 20.07.2016.
7.   It is also not in dispute that said cell phone was damaged on 14.04.2017
8.  It is also admitted fact that the complainant has raised his claim with O.P. No.1 just after the occurrence related to damage of the cell phone.
9.  It is also not in dispute that the claim of the complainant has been rejected on 17.04.2017 by the O.P. No.1.  
10.   Now we will discuss the matter in light of above admitted facts or the facts which are not in dispute. It is apparent from the print outs of the E-mail conversations made between the complainant and O.P. No.1 that claim has been rejected on 17.04.2017 without mentioning its reason. Though it is averred in the W.S. that damage to the cell phone was not caused due to accident but there is no evidence on the part of the O.P. No.1 to justify that very fact. Damage to the cell phone of the complainant has not been denied hence it is apparent that said damage will never cause without any external force. There is no evidence by the O.P. to show that claim is not justified or it is not admissible as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
11.   In light of above discussion we are of the view that rejection of the claim by O.P. No.1 is completely unjustified and without any justifiable reasons. Therefore, above issues are being decided against the O.P.No.1 and in favour of the complainant.
12.  Accordingly, the prayer made by the complainant is being allowed in the following manner:-

O.P. No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 12,700/-(Rs. Twelve thousand and seven hundred) only to the complainant as claim amount within 60 days from today, failing which he shall pay interest thereon @ 10% per annum from 16.08.2017 ( i.e. the date of filing of the case) till realization of the money. Further O.P. No.1 is directed to pay compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- respectively within 60 days from today.