Punjab

Sangrur

CC/119/2017

Mohd. Hamza - Complainant(s)

Versus

One Assist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.G.S.Nandpuri

14 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    119

                                                Instituted on:      24.03.2017  

                                                Decided on:       14.07.2017

 

 

Mohd. Hamza Anwar son of Mohd. Anwar Bilal, House No.111/133 (Pepsiwala), Belal Avenue, Payliagate, Near Ludhiana road Byepass, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

 

                                Versus

 

1.     One Assist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 707-709, Acme Plaza, Opposite Big Cinemas, Andheri-Kurla Road, Mumbai 400059 through Manager.

2.     National Insurance Company Ltd. 3, Middleton Street, Prafulla Chandra Sen, Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal 700071 (Head Office) through its General Manager.

3.     National Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Kaula Park, Sangrur (Branch Office) through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri G.S.Nandpuri, Adv.

For OPs No.2&3        :       Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Mohd. Hamza Anwar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a product/plan online,  namely, Everyday Assist under the Plan MA damage protection plan 8K-15 for Rs.824.15 from OP number 1 on 25.7.2016 against accidental protection of mobile Samsung J-5 bearing IMEI number 352672070972898, which was purchased by the complainant on 10.8.2015 and the complainant make the payment to Op number 1 and the Op number 1 issued relationship certificate number 1149700 valid upto 24.7.2017.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that on 5.8.2016, the mobile set in question J-5 was damaged accidentally, as a result of which two big broken lines on his mobile set screen appeared, as such, the complainant intimated about the same to OP number 1.  Further case of the complainant is that the employees of OP number 1 received the mobile set from the complainant at Malerkotla and other documents and OP number 1 gave confirmation of the same through email on 3.9.2016 and the OP number 1 estimated the above said damage for Rs.5554/- from authorised service centre. Further case of the complainant is that OP number 1 told the complainant that it has forwarded the documents to OP number 2, who is the insurance partner vide policy number 260200591510000015.  But, the grievance of the complainant is that OP number 1 rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the subject claim is not admissible under Exclusion 10-Loss or damage caused by wilful negligence (no proper care of handset has been taken by the insured to safeguard the property).  Thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice to the OP number 1 through his counsel Shri Mohd. Imran, Advocate, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.5554/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             Record shows that OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such, OP number 1 was proceeded exparte on 4.5.2017.

 

4.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OPs number 2 and 3,  preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant is not a  consumer of the OPs.  On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. It is stated further that neither the complainant nor the OP number 1 lodged any claim before the OP nor sent any documents or estimate to the OP, as such, it is stated that since no claim has been lodged, the question of any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs does not arise at all.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-20 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 2 and 3 has produced Ex.OP2&3/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties number 2 and 3, evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the insurance policy of OPs number 2 and 3 through OP number 1 for his mobile set J-5 bearing IMEI number 352672070972898 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.824.25 for the period from 25.7.2016 to 24.7.2017.  It is also an admitted case between the complainant and OP number 1 that the mobile set in question damaged during the subsistence of the insurance policy on 5.8.2016 and intimation of which was given to the OP number 1, as such the OP number 1 collected the mobile set in question from the complainant on 3.9.2016 of which confirmation was also given by OP number 1 and the OP number 1 allotted request number 1496764, as is evident from the copies of documents Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-13, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that “we wish to inform you that we have successfully collected the claim documents and damaged handset from you”, but the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 1 did not  forward the claim of the complainant to OPs number 2 and 3, as contemplated by the Ops number 2 and 3 in their written reply, wherein it is clearly mentioned that they are not at all liable to pay the claim as the claim was never lodged by OP number 1. No cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence has been produced on record by OP number 1 to show that the claim was ever lodged with the OPs number 2 and 3. It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 1 never returned the mobile set duly repaired or as it is, rather told that the claim is not payable in view of clause 10 of document Ex.C-2,  but, we are unable to go with the contention of the OP number 1 and are of the view that the claim of the complainant falls under clause 10 of Standard terms and conditions of the policy.  We may mention that the OP number 1 chose to remain exparte, nor, the OP number 1 has produced iota of evidence to show that the claim was ever lodged with the OP number 2 and 3 as alleged by Ops number 2 and 3 in their written statement as well as affidavit Ex.OP2&3/1.  Since the mobile set in question is lying with the OP number 1, the OP number 1 neither returned the mobile set in question to the complainant nor paid the claim amount of Rs.5554/-.  As such, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the Op number 1 is directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.5554/-.

 

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5554/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 24.3.2017 till realisation. We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- in lieu of litigation expenses. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        July 14, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member