Haryana

Kurukshetra

171/2017

Nikhil - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

Yudhvir Singh

19 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.171 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 21.08.2017.

                                                     Date of decision: 19.11.2018.

Nikhil son of Sh. Balwinder Singh, resident of Village Adhon, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. New India Insurance Company Ltd., Large Corporate & Brokers Officers (950000), 2^nd Floor, 4 Mangoe Lane, Kolkata through its Authorized Signatory.
2. YSM, MOBITECH Pvt. Ltd., A-97, Sector-64, Noida, Uttar Pradesh through its authorized signatory.
3. Smart Zone, Shop No.321, Sangam Complex, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its Authorized Signatory. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. Yudhvir Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. R.K.Singhal, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                Ops No.2 & 3 exparte.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Nikhil against New India Insurance Company and others, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a I-phone 7 mobile set from the Op No.3 for a sum of Rs.60,000/- vide invoice No.1075 dated 17.10.2016.  It is alleged that the complainant also got insured the said mobile set from the Op No.1 through Op No.2 vide policy bearing No.95000046161100000001 valid for the period 21.10.2016 to 20.10.2017 and the complainant paid Rs.3499/- for the said insurance.  It is further alleged that on 11.06.2017, the said mobile set fell down in the water stand near the street and the mobile set was got damaged.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops did not settle the claim 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 insured amount of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared before this Forum, whereas Ops No.2 & 3 did not appear.  Op No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 03.10.2017 and Op No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 30.05.2018.  Op No.1 contested the complaint by filing the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the claim of complainant was repudiated by the competent authority as the claim was not tenable as per the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, it is submitted that the insurance policy was purchased by YMS MOBITECH Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 16.04.2016 to 23.05.2018 and not by the complainant and it is specifically denied that the complainant had purchased the insurance policy from the answering Op.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 & Ex.R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.1.

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

7.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, we found that the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 17.10.2016 and the same was got insured with the Op No.1 through Op No.2 on payment of Rs.3499/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that on 11.06.2017, the mobile set of complainant fell down in the water stand near the street and got damaged.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant.  On the other hand, there is contention of the counsel of Op No.1 that the complainant has used the mobile set more than six months, so, the cost may be paid to him after deducting depreciation.  In this regard, he has drawn our attention towards the document Ex.C2, wherein it has been mentioned as under:-

Depreciation:     Depreciation shall be applicable on invoice value of the Insured Gadget as per following scale.  This is applicable in Theft, Burglary and Total Loss Cases (Including BER cases):

Age of the Insured Gadget	Depreciation (In %)
Upto 3 months	10%
3 months to 6 months	25%
Above 6 months	50%

 

           In the present case, the complainant has used the mobile set more than 6 months.  We can also rely upon the authority decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana bearing first appeal No.460 of 2014 decided on 28.05.2014 titled as Deepjot Singh Vs. The Mobile Store.  So, keeping in view the above citation and depreciation clause mentioned in the document Ex.C2, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be met if the cost of mobile set be ordered to be refunded after making 50% depreciation of the same. 

9.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint  and direct the Ops to pay Rs.30,000/- the cost of the mobile set after deducting 50% depreciation i.e. (Rs.60,000/- less Rs.30,000/-=Rs.30,000/-).  The Ops are also burdened to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges.  All the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparing of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of commencement of order till its payment.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:19.11.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.