Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/288/2017

Mr. Manpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

OneAssist Consumer Solutions Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Savita Rana Adv. & Sheena Khanna Adv.

26 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	288/2017
Date of Institution	:	24.03.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.09.2017

 

                                       

                                               

Mr.Manpreet Singh s/o Sh.Bakshish Singh r/o #3007, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh Punjab.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. One Assist Customer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., through its Manager, Address: 707-709, Acme Plaza, Opp. Big Cinema, Andheri-Kurla Road, Mumbai-400059, Maharashtra.

 

2. Currents Technology Retail (I) Ltd., through its Manager, Address: SCO No.449-450, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

 

3. Reliance Retail Ltd., through its Store Manager, Address: Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:      

Ms.Savita Rana, Adv. for the complainant

Sh.Amit Malhotra, Authorized Agent for OP No.2

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for OP No.3

OP No.1 exparte      

       

                 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Succinctly put, the complainant purchased a mobile phone make Apple I Phone 16GM Silver vide Invoice dated 21.07.2016 for Rs.44,900/-. Thereafter, he got the said mobile insured with OP No.1 through OP No.2 by paying the premium of Rs.3699/- under the plan MA Total Protection Plan 35K-50K  which was valid upto 21.07.2017 for an amount of Rs.44,900/-.  Subsequently, he bought updated version 6S Gold 16GM and as per the policy of the insurance company i.e. OP No.1, the aforesaid insurance of the complainant’s old iPhone 6 Sliver 16GB was carried forward to his latest 6S Gold 16GB iphone. It has further been averred that to substantiate the carrying forward of the insurance policy to the newly bought iPhone, a printed copy of the message dated 17.02.2017 (Annexure C-3) received from OP No.1.  On 16.01.2017, the complainant was having food in Sector 17 Plaza, Near Neelam Thatre, he had kept his latest iPhone besides him on the same bench on which he was himself sitting but somebody stole it from there. Subsequently, he submitted the claim with OP No.1 with the requisite documents. To his utter surprise, vide e-mail dated 25.02.2017 (Annexure C-5), the claim was repudiated by OP No.1 on the ground of “willful negligence” . Thereafter, he got served a legal notice upon OP No.1 but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Despite due service through registered post, OP No.1 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.05.2017.
3.         In its written statement, OP No.2 has admitted that  the complainant had purchased the mobile make Apple I Phone 16GM Silver vide Invoice dated 21.07.2016 for Rs.44,900/- and got the same insured with OP No.1 through OP No.2 under the plan MA Total Protection Plan 35K-50K  which was valid upto 21.07.2017.  It has further been pleaded that it is not liable for the services provided by OP No.1 and the dispute prevailed between the complainant and OP No.1.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant has failed to highlight the deficiency committed by it.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         In its separate written statement, OP No.3 has stated that the compliant qua it not maintainable as neither any cause of action has arisen against it nor the complainant has sought any relief against it.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5.         We have heard the arguments advanced by both sides and gone through the documentary evidence on record.
6.         After going through the documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the grounds stated hereinafter.  Admittedly, the theft of the mobile phone took place when the complainant kept the same besides him on the bench while having the dinner in Sector 17 Plaza, Near Neelam Theatre, thereby inviting miscreants to commit the theft. Had it he taken proper care and necessary steps to safeguard his property then the theft of the mobile phone could not have taken place. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the claim was rightly rejected by OP No.1 after due application of mind and keeping in view the exclusion clause of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy vide its e-mail dated 25.02.2017 because the loss of the mobile phone in question has occurred due to the sole negligence of the complainant himself.
7.         In view of the above discussion, finding the complaint to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
8.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

26/09/2017

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER