Haryana

Ambala

CC/162/2018

Ms Meenu - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

13 Dec 2019

ORDER

      BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.: 162 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution    :   21.05.2018.

                                                          Date of decision       :   13.12.2019.

 

Ms. Meenu daughter of Shri Rajinder Kumar, resident of House No.507, Jalbera Road, near Manav Chowk, Ambala City.

                                                                                       ……. Complainant.                                                  Versus

1. The New India, Assurance Co. Ltd., Ambala City, through its Branch Manager.
2.  Walia Communication, Court Road, Opposite HDFC Bank, Manav Chowk, Ambala City, through its Authorized Signatory.
3. Apple Private Limited 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road Banglore-560 001, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
4. Apps You Need, H-75, 201301, Sector-63, NOIDA, U.P. through its Officer/Authorised Signatory.

2^nd Address. Apps You Need, A-97, NOIDA, Sector-64, NOIDA, through its Officer/Authorised signatory.

           ..…..Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                                                

Present:       Shri Rohit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

OP No.2 ex parte vide order dated 27.11.2018.

Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate counsel for the OP No.3.

OP No.4 ex parte vide order dated 02.05.2019.

 

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (herein referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace the mobile set with a new mobile of the same brand of same value or to pay back the instalment amount already paid by the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expense.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a mobile I phone 6 (S) IMEI No.359155071012917, amounting Rs.50,000/-vide Bill No.1893 dated 27.09.2016 from OP No.2, under a finance scheme of Bajaj Finance Co. and the OP No.4 insured the mobile in question with the OP No.1 vide Master Policy No.95000046161100000001. On 27.02.2017, complainant was going on her Activa for shopping in the market. While passing near by the Pulia of Sector-8, Ambala City, a cow coming from the front side and resultantly the activa of complainant slipped and the mobile of the complainant fell in the drain and same found not in working condition.   Complainant reported the matter to the OP No.4 online and Cin No.DFEB16696 was allotted to the complainant. Complainant lodged the claim with OP No.1 and completed all the formalities of OP No.1 & 4, but the OP No.4 has rejected the claim of the complainant with the plea that the complainant quoted Invoice/bill No.1393 instead of 1893 dated 27.09.2016. However, the invoice number was not visible and the same presumed as 1393 instead of 1893, which the complainant inadvertently mentioned in the claim form. Complainant was paying the instalments regularly to Bajaj Finance Co. and had completed all the instalments of the mobile in question. Later on complainant after confirming the invoice number from OP no.2 informed the OP No.4 well before rejecting the claim, but the OP No.4 did not accept the same and rejected the claim of complainant without any reason just to escape from their liabilities. Despite assurance from all the OPs, OP No.4 has rejected the claim of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written version and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, bad for non joinder of necessary party etc. On merits, it is stated that no paper of the insurance of the mobile in question was submitted. OP No.1 has not authorized the Op No.4 to issue any policy and the OP no.1 was having only one master insurance policy with M/s YMS Mobitech Pvt. Ltd. who used to give insurance subject to terms and conditions. No intimation or claim was ever lodged or reported to the OP No.1 or even no such matter or dispute was ever brought to the notice of OP No.1, so there was no question of any mail, dealing correspondence or formalities as alleged. The complainant was under misconception about the office with which she was dealing about her claim. OP No.1 was not directly involved in the issuance of any insurance coverage to the mobile purchaser and there was no transaction/dealing/interaction/ interface between any purchaser with the OP No.1 about alleged claim and as such it is not deficient in providing the service and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs against it.

                   Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP no.2 before this Forum, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.11.2018.

                   Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared through its counsel and filed written version and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, concealing of true and material facts, not coming to this Forum with clean hands etc. On merits, it is stated that it was not aware about the fact that the OP No.1 and OP No.4 have issued insurance cover on the complainant’s iPhone. Complainant never approached the authorized service centre of it at any time for any issue with the device.

                   Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP no.4 before this Forum, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.05.2019.

3.                Complainant tendered her affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-18 and closed her evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of K.K Sachdeva, Sr. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Priyesh Poovanna S/o U K Nanaiah, Major, Country Legal counsel, Apple India Ltd, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Malya Road, Bengaluru-560001 alongwith documents Annexure OP3/1 and OP3/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file as well as the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant & OP No.1.

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant  reiterated the version as mentioned in the complaint and prayed for allowing the present complaint.  

6.                Similarly, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 3 reiterated the version as mentioned in its written version and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

7.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased a mobile I phone 6(S) IMEI No.359155071012917 amounting Rs.50,000/-vide bill dated 1893 dated 27.09.2016  (Annexure C-5) from the OP No.2, under a Bajaj Finance Scheme. As per complainant the said mobile in question was insured with the OP No.1, vide Master Policy No.95000046161100000001. On 27.02.2017, complainant met with an accident due to which mobile in question fell in the drain and after removing the same from the drain it was not found   in working condition. Complainant reported the matter with the  OP No.4, who generated Cin No.DFEB16696. Complainant submitted a claim with OP No.1. Complainant completed all the formalities with the OP No.1 & 4, but OP No.4 rejected the claim of the complainant with a plea that on the Invoice bill dated 27.09.2016, the number on the same was mentioned as 1393 instead of 1893. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 argued that damage to the mobile in question was caused on 27.02.2017. The set in question was to be insured with it, but no such insurance policy or any other proof was placed on record except a paper allegedly sent by OP No.4 through e-mail (Annexure C-6), wherein the name of insurer is mentioned as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. with master policy No.95000046161100000001. The OP No.1 had not issued any such insurance policy to OP No.4 and it has contract with a company namely YMS Mobitech Pvt. Ltd.. The OP No.1 has also placed on file the policy bearing No.9500004616110000001, wherein the name of the company is mentioned as YMS Mobitech and there is no mention of Apps You Need i.e OP No.4. As per the said policy, there is no relation of consumer between the complainant and OP No.1. Neither insurance policy was ever issued to complainant by OP No.1 nor any insurance contract with OP No.4, so the complaint against OP No.1 is not maintainable. Complainant has never approached its authorized service centre for repair/check up.  It is also proved from the documents placed on record, that the OP No.2 who is not the authorized service provider of the OP No.3. Even they were not aware about the fact that the OP No.1 and OP No.4 have ever issued any insurance cover for the mobile set of the complainant. Complainant never visited OP No.3 or any of its Apple Authorized Service Provider for any issues in the device till date. None has appeared on behalf of OP No.4, as it was proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted against it. We believe the contention of the complainant that his mobile phone was insured through the OP No.4.  The complaint failed to prove his case against the OP No.1 to 3. Thus, the OP No.4 has committed deficiency in service and is liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and harassment suffered by her. The complaint against the OP No.1 to 3 is liable to be dismissed and complaint against OP No.4 is liable to be allowed.

8.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the present complaint against the OPs No.1 to 3 and allow the same against the OP No.4 and direct it in the following manner:-

1. To pay Rs.50,000/- as costs of mobile set in question to the complainant. 
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OP No.4 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :13.12.2019.

 

     (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

      Member                            Member                       President