Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/44/2017

Karnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oneassist Consumer Solutions Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

19 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.         :     44 of 2017

Date of Institution                             :     29.08.2017

Date of Decision:                    :     19.03.2018

Karnail Singh S/o Sh.Harbans Lal R/o Mohalla Aranhali, Rahon District SBS Nagar.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1. OneASSIST CONSUMER SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 707-709, Acme Plaza, Opposite Big Cinemas, Andheri, Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400059 through its Manager.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, 5^th Floor, Sterling Cinema Building, Murzban Road, Azad Maidan, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 through its Manager.

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH.A.P.S. RAJPURT, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

For complainant                      :         In person.

For OP No.1                           :         Ex parte.

For OP No.2                                     :         Sh.D.B. Bhalla, Advocate

 

ORDER

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

        Complainant filed present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by alleging that he purchased a Redmi 4 (32 G.B. Black) vide bill dated 25.05.2017 for Rs.8,999/- through online which delivered at Rahon, Nawanshahr.   OP No.1 has insured the said mobile vide insurance policy No.1001541145 on 13.06.2017 under plan namely MA Damage Non Apple D2C 8K-12K Membership and he paid online premium of Rs.749/- for the same and the said policy was issued by OP No.2, under which the said mobile was fully covered for any type of damage and liquid damage.  Under the said insurance policy, the OPs have told about broken of mobile, liquid damage or any other damage caused to mobile were fully covered.  On 20.07.2017, he was going through bicycle and suddenly the said mobile was fallen in road water and was damaged.  He intimated the same to OP No.1 on 21.07.2017 vide claim No.2172807, and claimed the amount.  After that OP No.1 has deputed a person who completed all the formalities and taken the mobile and disclosed that after some days new mobile was received to him.  On 12.08.2017, the Ops had rejected his claim and sent back the mobile disclosing that repaired the said mobile with own expenses. Due to this reason, the complainant has been suffered with great mental agony & finance loss.  Lastly prayer has been made for payment of insurance claim and also claimed for Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.60,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       Upon notice, OP No.1 has  failed to appeared and ultimately proceeded against ex parte.  OP No.2 has filed written version stating therein that complaint is legally & factually not maintainable as complainant has no locus standi to file present complaint against answering OP.  There has been violation of policy condition.  The insurance in question is specially contingency Insurance policy purchased by One Assist Consumer Solution Pvt. Ltd from answering OP which covers theft, burglary & accidental damages subject to certain exclusion/clauses.  The present claim in question is being denied on the ground that “The subject claim is not admissible under Exclusion 10 – Loss or damage caused by willful negligence, improper handling (No proper care of handset has been taken by insured to safeguard the property) and if there is violation of this condition then Insurance Company is not liable to pay anything.  In this complaint it is self revealing from the allegations of complainant that he was willfully negligent & he did not take proper care of the handset thus the alleged loss or damage, if any is not liable to be compensated by answering OP.  Complainant is not consumer of answering OP.  This Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.  Relief sought in this complaint is in violation of terms and conditions of policy.  Complaint is  bad for mis-joinder & non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is admitted that OP No.1 has purchased the insurance policy. But all other averments made in the complaint are categorically denied.  Lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

4.       On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered in evidence self declaration Ex.C-1 alongwith photocopies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and close the evidence. Learned counsel for OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Param Pal Singh Ex.OP2/A alongwith copy of rejection Ex.OP2/1, copy of policy Ex.OP2/2, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP2/3, then copy of collection receipt Ex.OP2/4, copy of terms and condition of One Assist Special Contingency Insurance Policy Ex.OP2/5 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the complainant and counsel for OP No.2 and have also gone through the record carefully.

6.       Complainant has argued that he purchased a Redmi 4 (32 G.B. Black) vide bill dated 25.05.2017 for Rs.8,999/- through online which delivered at Rahon, Nawanshahr.   OP No.1 has insured the said mobile vide insurance policy No.1001541145 on 13.06.2017 under plan namely MA Damage Non Apple D2C 8K-12K Membership and he paid online premium of Rs.749/- for the same and the said policy was issued by OP No.2, under which the said mobile was fully covered for any type of damage and liquid damage.  Under the said insurance policy, the OPs have told about broken of mobile, liquid damage or any other damage caused to mobile were fully covered.  On 20.07.2017, he was going through bicycle and suddenly the said mobile was fallen in road water and was damaged.  He intimated the same to OP No.1 on 21.07.2017 vide claim No.2172807, and claimed the amount.  After that OP No.1 has deputed a person who completed all the formalities and taken the mobile and disclosed that after some days new mobile was received to him.  On 12.08.2017, the Ops had rejected his claim and sent back the mobile disclosing that repaired the said mobile with own expenses. He prayed for payment of insurance claim and also claimed for Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.60,000/- as litigation expenses.

7.       Learned counsel for OP-2 has submitted that complaint is legally & factually not maintainable as complainant has no locus standi to file present complaint against answering OP.  There has been violation of policy condition.  The insurance in question is specially contingency Insurance policy purchased by One Assist Consumer Solution Pvt. Ltd from answering OP which covers theft, burglary & accidental damages subject to certain exclusion/clauses.  The present claim in question is being denied on the ground that “The subject claim is not admissible under Exclusion 10 – Loss or damage caused by willful negligence, improper handling (No proper care of handset has been taken by insured to safeguard the property) and if there is violation of this condition then Insurance Company is not liable to pay anything.  In this complaint it is self revealing from the allegations of complainant that he was willfully negligent & he did not take proper care of the handset thus the alleged loss or damage, if any is not liable to be compensated by answering OP.

8.       Learned counsel for OP-2 has given more stress on Ex.OP2/1 which mentions that “The subject claim is not admissible under Exclusion 10 – Less or damage caused by willful negligence, improper handling (No proper care of handset has been taken by insured to safeguard the property)”. 

9.       Learned counsel for OP-2 has contended that complainant is not consumer qua OP-2. Moreover, there is no contract between complainant and OP-2 nor any payment is made to OP No.2 by complainant.  Complaint does not lie against OP-2 because jurisdiction caused between OP No.1&2 at Bombay.  Therefore, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide this complaint.

10.     Resultantly, The Op No.1 not come to this Forum intentionally and proceeded against ex parte. 

11.     Accordingly, in view of our above discussions, the present complaint filed by complainant is partly allowed and OP-1 is directed to rectify slash handset in question as no negligence has been proved against complainant.  Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.2,000/- lump sum which shall be paid by OP No.1.  The above said entire compliance be made by the OP-1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order

            

12.     Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated:  19.03.2018

 

  

(Kanwaljeet Singh)       (A.P.S. Rajput)

Member                         President