Dt. of filing – 09/03/2018
Dt. of Judgement – 17/04/2019
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant namely Sri Biswanath Brata Roy under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties namely 1) One Assist Consumer Solutions Private Limited 2) R. G. Cellulars Pvt Ltd and 3) Eastern Logical Infoway Ltd alleging deficiency in rendering service on their part.
Complainant’s case in short is that he purchased an Apple I Phone on 31/1/2017 being Invoice no.2531 insured the same through Eastern Logica Infoway Ltd /Opposite Party No.3 for protection against theft, damage etc. On 25/2/2018 the said Apple I Phone was slipped from the hand of the Complainant and got damaged. The Complainant informed about the incident to Opposite Party No.1 who mailed the Complainant that they cannot process the claim as the invoice of the Apple I Phone do not have stamp on it. And further on 8/3/2018 the said Opposite Party No.1/Insurance Company informed through mail that from the time of purchase till 15 days is the cooling period he is not entitled to insurance claim. But in their plan book it is mentioned that it was valid for a period of 365 days from activation. So the present complaint is filed by the Complainant praying for directing the Opposite Parties to pay sum of Rs.48,000/- or to replace his phone immediately, to pay compensation Rs.50,000/- and to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Complainant has annexed with the complaint petition, invoice regarding purchase of the Apple I Phone, documents showing payment of Rs.2,639/- towards renewal of mobile insurance, mails sent by the Opposite Party No.1 which also includes the mail intimating claim closed under cooling period and copy of the plan stating 365 days validity from activation.
Case is contested by Opposite Party No.3 by filing written version disputing and denying the allegation stating inter alia that the Opposite Party No.3 only introduced the Complainant for insurance as approached by the Complainant. So the Opposite Party No.3 prayed for dismissal of the case against it.
Opposite Party No.1 has also filed written version in the form of reply denying and disputing the allegations contending inter alia that the Complainant purchased a mobile on 13/1/2017 and so the mobile was more than 15 days old while activation of the policy. The membership of the Complainant of mobile insurance policy started on 11/2/2018 and the Complainant raised the damage claim on 25/2/2018. As per the policy terms, damage claim could be processed only after the expiry of 15 days from the insurance membership. So the Opposite Party No.1 also has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On perusal of the record it appears that during the course of evidence Opposite Party No.1 did not participate and only Opposite Party No.3 and the Complainant adduced their respective evidence by filing affidavit-in-chief followed by filing of questionnaire and reply thereto. Ultimately the argument has been advanced. Written notes of argument has also been filed on behalf of Complainant.
So the following points require determination:-
- Whether there has been any deficiency for providing service by the Opposite Party?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1 & 2
Both these points are taken up together for discussions for the sake of convenience and in order to avoid repetition.
Complainant has claimed that he purchased Apple I Phone on 31/1/2017 which was insured. On 10/2/2018, he renewed the insurance. On 25/2/2018 said I Phone somehow was slipped from the Complainant’s hand and was damaged. But when the claim was made by the Complainant from the Opposite Party No.1 they refused on the ground that the cooling period of 15 days was not over.
Complainant has filed invoice showing purchase of mobile, documents relating to renewal of membership regarding insurance. Moreover, from the written version filed by the Opposite Party No.1 as well as Opposite Party No.3, fact of purchase of mobile and the same was insured by way of renewal on 10/2/2018 is not in dispute. Opposite Party No.1 with his written version has annexed the copy of the policy wherefrom it is evident that in case the customer device is more than 15 days old during the time of one assist membership activation, no claim will be accepted during first 15 days of activation. Complainant has also filed copy of the plan wherefrom it appears that it is specifically mentioned “validity 365 days from the activation”. So according to the Complainant he was never intimated about the said cooling period. Be that as it may since there is no dispute about Complainant being member of Opposite Party No.1 and the insurance was obtained renewed on the date as referred to above, the question to be adjudicated restricts only to consider whether the claim was made within 15 days of the membership? It has not been disputed and denied that renewal of insurance was done on 10/2/2018. It is also evident from the document filed by the Complainant that the renewal was done on 10/2/2018. Admittedly the claim was made on 25/2/2018. If that be so then even accepting the claim of Opposite Party No.1 that no claim will be accepted during the first 15 days of activation then also they cannot escape from the liabilities as the claim was made exactly on 16th day. It is apparent from the policy that the Opposite Party No.1 is the insurance holder for its consumers/beneficiaries. In such a situation as Opposite Party No.1 rejected the claim of Complainant, there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and as such it is liable to pay the amount of Rs.48,000/- as prayed by the Complainant or to replace the I Phone. However, keeping in view the facts and situation of this case no compensation as prayed is allowed.
These points are thus answered accordingly.
Hence,
Ordered
CC/122/2018 is allowed on contest against Opposite Party No.1 and dismissed against other OPs.
Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.48,000/- to Complainant or in alternative to replace the phone within two months from the date of this order. Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost to the Complainant within the aforesaid period of two months in default the entire sum shall carry interest @ 8% p.a till realization.
