Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/1/2018

Suraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

One assistant - Opp.Party(s)

in person

24 Aug 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.    01 of 2018

                                                DATE OF INSTITUTION: -              01.01.2018

                                                            DATE OF ORDER: -                         24.08.2023

 

Suraj Chand Aggarwal son of Shri Naresh Kumar Aggarwal, resident of Manan Panna, Ward No. 24, House No.34/39, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

 

    ……………Complainant.

 

VERSUS

 

1. The Manager, Corporate Office, One Assist Consumer Solution Pvt. Ltd., 707-708-709 ACME PLAZA, near Andheri Kulra Road Andheri East Mumbai
   400059.
2. Manager, Registered Office one Assist Consumer Solution Private Limited, B24

Manu Bharti Azad Lane off SV Road Andheri West, Mumbai 4000 58.

3. Manager, National Insurance Company Limited 3 Middleton Street Prafula Chandrasen Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal 700071.
4. Director, Subrata Pani, One Assist Consumer Solution Private Limited 707 ACME Plaza, Near Big Cinema, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai.
5. Manager, Simple Cell Solution Near Adarsh Mahila Mahavidyalaya Hansi Gate, Bhiwani.

 

………….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

 

 

BEFORE:      Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member

Sh. D.M. Yadav, Member

 

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

         Sh. Pardeep Bajar, Advocate for OP no. 1, 2 & 4.

         OP no. 3 given up.

         OP no. 5 exparte.

 

ORDER:-

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member:

 

1.                     Brief facts of the case, as per complainant are that he had purchased f3 mobile of Oppo mobile company from Simple Cell Solution Hansi Gate Bhiwani by paying Rs.19,990/- in cash on 09.08.2017 whose IMEI number is 86524503628794-8786.  It is alleged that the said mobile phone was insured from August 10, 2017 for the next 12 months if there is any damage to the mobile, the mobile is stolen, the mobile breaks, then in the context of theft mobile, the One Assist Company will replace the mobile phone or get it fixed or return the cost of the above, which was offered by the company.  It is alleged that the money was sent by the applicant to the account of One Assist Company through online for Rs.2159/- and 1001750517 policy issued by the company to the applicant.   The mobile was insured from One Assist Consumer Solution Private Limited Company but at the time of clean, the claim was rejected by the National Insurance Company Limited.  It is further alleged that the applicant’s phone was lost on 18.12.2017 at around 3.10 pm in the District Court premises and immediately he contacted an advocate’s mobile on his mobile phone, the phone rang one or twice and later the mobile was switched off.  The applicant immediately informed the mobile phone company.  It is further alleged that the applicant has completed all the documents asked by the company as per the company rules.  The applicant had to complete the information related to his case to the company in 250 words only which he could not describe in expression in such a few words and by calling the company call centre, it was also informed that I wanted to tell you the case in Hindi language, but according to your company rule, the condition of the case was to be known only in English words.  It is alleged that when the company wanted to know the condition of the mobile by contacting the call centre, then the call center people told that you will get a call after 24 to 48 hours after document verification.  The applicant reported the loss of the phone to the police department and also to the mobile company, and when the company asked for an explanation of the loss of the mobile phone, it was also given in writing by the customer, but the company officials rejected the customer’s claim due to the forgery.  It is alleged that the one assist company is a fraud company against whom orders should be issued to register a case under IPC 420 Section 467, 468, 471, 120-B.  It is alleged that on dated 18.12.2017, an FIR no.1322302217017772 be also registered.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses.  Therefore, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.19,990/- as cost of the mobile and document expenses alongwith interest.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint.

2.                     On appearance, OP no. 1, 2 &4  filed written statement alleging therein that  the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of this Forum.  It is submitted that the claim of the complainant was rejected under the Exclusion Clause-I as the loss or damage to the mobile phone in question was due to unexplained circumstances.  It is submitted that the replying opposite party is merely a service provider which arranged the insurance of the mobile handset of the complainant through National Insurance Company Ltd. and thus acted as the facilitator in registering and processing of the claim with the insurance company.  It is submitted that the claim settlement was at the sole discretion of the National Insurance Company Ltd.  It is further submitted that as per the record on 18.12.2017, the replying opposite party received the theft claim from the complainant with respect to the mobile handset in question and given the following description of incidence of loss:

“today, on 18.12.2017, the District Court, Small Secretariat, had lost my mobile phone at about 03.15 p.m., that I had spoken to my friend about the last time around 3.00 a.m. and had to make an anticipatory bail in the District Court to contact him in the absence of the accused when I saw my phone right  in the pocket of his jacket open, when I open my mobile phone number with my associate advocate called on my mobile and the ring went twice but was later turned off”.  It is submitted that the complainant has not given the complete detail of the incidence of loss. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of O Pno. 1, 2 & 4. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3.                     On dated 20.8.2020 the complainant has given up OP no. 3 being unnecessary party.

4.                     No  one has appeared on behalf of OP no. 5.  Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 1.3.2018.

5.                     To prove its complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence documents  Annexure C1 to Annexure C5 and closed the evidence vide his separate statement dt. 24.07.2020.    

6.                     Counsel for the OP no.1, 2 & 4 has tendered document Annexure D-1 and closed the evidence vide his separate statement dt.22.03.2023

7.                     We have perused the written arguments filed by complainant.  We have also heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire evidence placed on record by the parties carefully and minutely.

                        During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant as well as learned counsel for OPs  no. 1, 2 & 4 reiterated the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant as well as the reply filed by the respective OPs no. 1,2 & 4 and further drawn the attention of this Forum/Commission towards the documents placed on record by the respective parties.

8.                       After hearing arguments and going through the entire case file and perusing the documents so placed on record very carefully and minutely, we have observed that in the present case, the complainant got his mobile phone insured with One Assist company.  The grievance of the complainant is that the money was sent by the applicant to the account of One Assist Company through online for Rs.2159/- and policy no. 1001750517 was issued by the company to the applicant.  The applicant’s phone was lost on 18.12.2017 at around 3.10 p.m. and as per insurance scheme the company offered following scheme i.e. if there is any damage to the mobile, the mobile is stolen, the mobile breaks, then in the context of theft mobile, the one assist company will replace the mobile phone or get it fixed or return the cost of the above.  Another grievance of the complainant is that the mobile was insured from One Assist Consumer Solution Private limited but at the time of clean, the claim was rejected by the National Insurance Company Limited.  On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the OPs no. 1, 2 & 4 is that OP is merely a service provider which arranged the insurance of the mobile handset of the complainant through National Insurance Company Ltd. and thus acted as the facilitator in registering and processing of the claim with the insurance company.    Copy of email received from One Assist company is Annexure C-1, copy of lost property report as Annexure C-2, copy of bill of mobile as Annexure C-3, copy of declaration form as Annexure C-4 and copy of mail received from One assist company as Annexure C-5 have also been placed on file.  Hence the opposite party no. 1, 2 & 4 are liable to compensate the complainant.  As per documents placed on record, complainant is repeatedly requesting the OPs for claim  but the same has not been done by OPs which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

9.                     One assist company has deducted the amount wrongly, deliberately and illegally.  The sum assured of the mobile phone was Rs.19,990/-.
As per our opinion, we have deducting Rs.1999/- on account of 10 % depreciation.  As per our opinion, the respondent no. 1, 2 & 4 is liable to pay the amount of Rs17,991/- and OP no. 3 is not liable to pay the same. In view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the Opposite party no. 1, 2 & 4 (jointly and severally) to refund the price of the mobile set in question 19,990/- after deducting 10% depreciation i.e. Rs.17,991/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand nine hundred ninety one only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.01.01.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5500/- (Rupees five thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.   

                        Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.

Dated: - 24.08.2023

 

 (D.M.Yadav)                (Saroj Bala Bohra)                 

   Member.                    Presiding Member,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.

 

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

         Sh. Pardeep Bajar, Advocate for OP no. 1, 2 & 4.

         OP no. 3 given up.

         OP no. 5 exparte.

 

                    Arguments heard.  Vide separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint stands allowed.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

                   

Dt:24.08.2023         Member.                    Presiding Member,

                                                               District Consumer Disputes

                                                               Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.