Haryana

Kurukshetra

01/2018

Anil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 Sep 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.1 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 02.01.2018.

                                                     Date of decision: 18.09.2018.

Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Giani Ram, R/o Village Barna, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.
2. Babaji Communication, Mohan Nagar, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra, through its authorized signatory.

….Respondents.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

       

Present:     Complainant in person.   

                Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                Op No.2 exparte.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Anil Kumar against New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile set Lenovo K4 Note bearing IMEI No.860933037521938 vide bill No.1233 dt. 03.11.2016 from the Op No.2 for a sum of Rs.11,600/-.  It is alleged that the complainant got insured the said mobile set with the Op No.1 through Op No.2.  It is further alleged that on 25.10.2017 the complainant was talking on his mobile set and from behind one bull came and hit with the complainant.  The said mobile set fell down on the ground and thereafter was not working.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops for replacement of said mobile set but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to refund the amount of Rs.11,600/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony or any other relief which this Forum may deems fit.   

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 05.01.2018.  Op No.1 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that after lodging the claim by the complainant, it was requested to complainant to mention the date and place in the form and in the incident report.  It was also requested to specify where the mobile set was and how did it fell after the bull hit the complainant but despite repeated requests, the complainant failed to provide said details, so, the claim of complainant was not processed; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit (Ex.CW1/A) and documents copy of bill (Ex.C1), copy of claim type submitted by the complainant with the insurance company (Ex.C2), copy of aadhar card (Ex.C3) and copy of detail of SMS (Ex.C4) and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

5.             On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit (Ex.RW1/A) and terms and conditions of insurance policy (Ex.R1) and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.1.

6.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             From the cash memo, it is made out that the unit in question was purchased on 03.11.2016 for the sale consideration of Rs.11,600/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that during the warranty period i.e. on 25.10.2017, the mobile set fell down and thereafter was not working and despite several requests, the Ops did not replace the mobile set.   From the perusal of claim form dt. 25.10.2017, Ex.C2 written by the complainant to Op No.1, it is clear that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op No.1 but the Op No.1 did not settle the claim.  So, from the said claim form, it is clear that the unit became defective on 25.10.2017 i.e. within the warranty/guarantee period.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from the Ops.

8.            Thus, in view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OPs to replace the hand set of the complainant with new one of the same model.  However, it is made clear that if the same model of mobile set is not available in the company, then the Ops are directed to pay the purchased amount of mobile set to the complainant.  The complainant is directed to deposit the old hand set along with bill and accessories with the service center of the company.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  The order; be complied with within a period of 30 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.   File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:18.09.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Anamika Gupta)             

                                        Member