BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 102 of 2017
Date of Institution : 11.5.2017
Date of Decision : 25.07.2019.
Vikas son of Shri Raj Kumar, resident of Inderpuri Mohalla, Gali No.3, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- National Insurance Company, Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd. Office at Sirsa, through its Divisional Manager.
- Ridhi Sidhi Mobile, opposite Arya Primary School, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa.
- Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd, 4-SSK, Saphire Plaza, Pune Airport Road, Near Symbosis College Pune- 411014.
- SSK Retails Pvt. Ltd. 7-Akshay Complex Office Dhole Patil Road, Pune- 411001.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. Manish Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, proxy counsel for Sh. Ravinder Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Satpal Singh, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite parties no.3 and 4.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased one mobile make Samsung Galaxy J7 from op no.2 and also got insured his mobile with ops’ company vide insurance policy Sr. no. SGI-1199-84170705 dated 28.12.2016. That on 22.3.2017 two persons came on a bike and snatched away his mobile. That complainant got registered an FIR bearing No.129 dated 23.3.2017 in the police station City Sirsa and thereafter lodged the claim with the ops alongwith all requisite documents but the ops did not settle the claim inspite of his repeated request. That the complainant immediately informed the company. The complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.11,900/-. It is further averred that the conduct of the ops for wrongly withholding the claim of complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the information was required to be given to op within 48 hours from the date and time of loss, but the complainant never informed the answering op about the alleged snatching of his mobile, as such the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant also never lodged any claim with answering op at any point of time. Moreover, the insurance policy as relied upon the complainant is subject to verification from the issuing office, but in this case, the same has not yet been verified. Hence, the complaint is wholly pre-mature qua answering op and as such same cannot proceed any further. It is further submitted that answering op through an application under RTI Act, sought information about FIR No.129 dated 23.3.2017 from Police Department, Sirsa and in reply to the said application, it is reported that said FIR is not relating to the snatching of any mobile rather the same is with regard to an offence under Section 174-A IPC. So, said FIR does not relate to the alleged incidence of snatching of mobile of complainant. In this manner, the complainant supplied wrong information to the answering op. Since no legal and valid claim has been lodged with the answering op by the complainant, so question of settlement of the same does not arise at all. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 in its written statement also took certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op is only seller of the mobile and there is no liability upon answering op regarding claim of mobile in question. Remaining contents of complaint are denied.
4. Ops no.3 and 4 in their written statement took certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, estoppal, non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts. It is submitted that the policy document clearly shows that the contract regarding insurance under Syska Gadget Secure Scheme is facilitated by Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd and the insurance cover provided by the National Insurance Company. The terms of insurance was given to the customer at the time of purchase in form of booklet as well as in form of soft copy in mobile at the time of activating the coupon for insurance. It is further submitted that true and material facts are that claim does not falls under the purview of the policy, hence claim is not admissible as per policy terms and date of purchase is completely mismatched with Syska Portal/ record. The detail provided by the customer is mismatched with the record. Remaining contents are also denied.
5. The complainant and op no.1 then led their respective evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also produced cash/ credit memo dated 28.12.2016 Ex.C1, copy of police intimation letter dated 23.3.2017 Ex.C2, copy of insurance claim form Ex.C3, copy of certificate Ex.C4, copy of statement Ex.C5, copy of undertaking Ex.C6, copy of mobile insurance certificate Ex.C7, certificate Ex.C8 and copy of blanket cover for devices Ex.C9. On the other hand, op no.1 furnished affidavit of Sh. V.K. Gumber, Divisional Manager as Ex.R1 in which he has reiterated the averments made in the written statement, verification report of police department Ex.R2, copy of police intimation letter Ex.R3, copy of mobile insurance certificate Ex.R4 and copy of FIR Ex.R5. The remaining ops did not lead any evidence.
8. As per averments of the complainant, he had purchased mobile set from op no.2 for a sum of Rs.11,900/- on 28.12.2016 and got insured the same from op no.1 on payment of premium vide insurance policy Sr. No.SGI-1199-84170705 dated 28.12.2016. On 23.3.2017 he was in Rori Bazar and was talking on the mobile and at that time persons came on a bike and snatched away his mobile. Due intimation was given to the police and FIR No.129 dated 23.3.2017 was lodged in police station City Sirsa and thereafter due intimation was given to the insurance company and claim was lodged but same has been repudiated.
9. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the insurance company that as per allegations of complainant after snatching, he had lodged FIR No.29 dated 23.3.2017 in police station City Sirsa, but however, the insurance company sought information/ record from the concerned police station under RTI Act which reported that FIR No.129 dated 23.3.2017 has not been registered on the statement of complainant rather it was registered under Section 174-A IPC which does not relate to the case of complainant.
10. The perusal of evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has relied upon intimation Ex.C2 which finds mentioned FIR No.129 dated 23.3.2017 at the bottom with seal of the police station and claim was lodged vide Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.1 insurance company has relied upon Ex.R5 copy of FIR No.129 dated 15.2.2017 which was registered on the statement of ASI Mahinder Singh under Section 174A IPC. The complainant has not placed on record any copy of FIR No.129 dated 23.3.2017 in order to prove his plea that his mobile was snatched by someone. So, complainant has failed to prove fact of snatching of his mobile by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
11. In view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of merit and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated:25.07.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa
