1.       Nitin Chaudhary, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the complainant purchased iphone 6 mobile from Currents, Alpha One, Amritsar and got the same insured from the opposite party against complete accidental and liquid damages for which the complainant paid the requisite charges to the opposite party vide Membership No.1000448045. The mobile phone has been insured for a “Trouble Free Service” for a period of one year from the date of purchase of Insurance. But no terms and conditions were supplied by the opposite party to the complainant at the time of purchase of insurance. On the repeated requests of representatives of the opposite party, the complainant got renewed the said insurance cover on 23.12.2016. On 3.4.2017, the aforesaid mobile phone suffered “liquid damage” due to accidental slip in water and the same stopped functioning. The complainant made complaint regarding accidental damage of mobile phone with the opposite party on 4.4.2017 on customer care number of the opposite party i.e. 1800 123 3330. But the concerned representative of opposite party did not register the complaint on the pretext that the previous claim was not closed and told the complainant to wait for some time. Thereafter the complainant again contacted customer care service of opposite party on 7.4.2017, 8.4.2017 and then on 10.4.2017. But on 10.4.2017 the representative of the opposite party flatly refused to register the genuine claim of the complainant. The complainant also sent an e-mail to the opposite party, but the opposite party did not give any satisfactory reply and simply remarks that the previous claim is closed. The complainant again called customer care service of opposite party on 14.7.2017 for seeking explanation of such reply, but the representative of the opposite party again flatly refused to register the complaint by saying that when once mobile phone is replaced then the policy remains no more in existence. It is pertinent to mention over here that earlier in August 2016 the mobile phone suffered a simple problem of ‘low sound’ from call receiving end for which the complaint was registered but the opposite party after two months replaced the mobile phone in October 2016. At that time no terms and conditions were sent by the opposite party to the complainant neither any letter or e-mail was sent to the complainant regarding illegal termination of Insurance policy. Moreover in  the month of December 2016, the representative of the opposite party requested the complainant to renew the insurance policy. As such on the assurances of the representative of the opposite party  the complainant online paid the charges  and renewed the policy till 22.12.2017. Now the opposite party has miserably failed to discharge its obligations  as per Insurance policy the mobile phone is  insured for all ‘Accidental/Liquid Damages” till 22.12.2017.. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

(a)     Opposite party be directed to refund the purchase money of aforesaid mobile phone i.e. Rs. 53000/- ;

(b)     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 20000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Opposite party did not opt to put in appearance despite service, as such it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

3.       In ex-parte evidence complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-2 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12 and closed his evidence.

4.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

5.       From the perusal of the record, it becomes evident that complainant got his iphone 6 mobile insured from the opposite party against complete accidental and liquid damages for which the complainant paid the requisite charges to the opposite party vide Membership No.1000448045. Copy of receipt of Insurance is Ex.C-4 on record.  It was the case of the complainant that the said mobile phone has been insured for a “Trouble Free Service” for a period of one year from the date of purchase of Insurance. But no terms and conditions were supplied by the opposite party to the complainant at the time of purchase of insurance. The complainant  got renewed the said insurance cover on 23.12.2016. On 3.4.2017, the aforesaid mobile phone suffered “liquid damage” due to accidental slip in water and the same stopped functioning. In this regard the complainant made complaint regarding accidental damage of mobile phone with the opposite party on 4.4.2017 ,7.4.2017, 8.4.2017 and then on 10.4.2017 on customer care number of the opposite party i.e. 1800 123 3330. But on 10.4.2017 the representative of the opposite party flatly refused to register the genuine claim of the complainant. The complainant again called customer care service of opposite party on 14.7.2017 for seeking explanation of such reply, copy of such complaint is Ex.C-12 on record, but the representative of the opposite party again flatly refused to register the complaint by saying that when once mobile phone is replaced then the policy remains no more in existence. However, earlier in August 2016 the mobile phone suffered a simple problem of ‘low sound’ from call receiving end for which the complaint was registered but the opposite party after two months replaced the mobile phone in October 2016 and at that time also no terms and conditions were sent by the opposite party to the complainant neither any letter or e-mail was sent to the complainant regarding illegal termination of Insurance policy. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Satpal Singh & Others 2014(2) CLT 305 that onus to prove that the terms and conditions were supplied to the insured is on the Insurance company. But in this case the opposite party could not produce any evidence to prove that the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy in question were supplied to the complainant. It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case M/s. Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd 2000(1) CPC 596 that where the terms and conditions of the policy were not supplied to the insured, the same are not binding on the insured. The complainant went on European tour from 8.6.2014 to 9.7.2014 during the period of policy he fell ill and was hospitalized during validity of the insurance policy from 24.5.2014 to 22.7.2014. So the opposite party was not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on this ground that he did not travel on tour within first 14 days from the date of commencement of the policy.

6.       The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as opposite party, despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the complaint and thereby the opposite party impliedly  admitted the claim of the complainant, which further shows that the opposite party had no defence to offer for contesting the case of the complainant. In such a situation, the effective remedy available to the complainant would be the refund of the price of the mobile handset in dispute. The act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.

7.       Consequently we allow the instant complaint ex-parte with directions to opposite party to refund the price of the mobile handset in dispute amounting to Rs.53500/- to the complainant. Cost of the litigation are assessed at Rs. 2000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which, complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. . Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 14.8.2017