DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Consumer Complaint No.: 171 of 2017
Date of Institution : 08.12.2017
Date of Decision : 08.06.2018
Ashu Mittal, aged about 28 years, son of Pawan Kumar Mittal resident of # B-I/323, Gurudwara Street, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
ONEASSIST Live Uninterrupted, OneAssist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., PO Box No. 7417, J.B. Nagar Post Office, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059 through its Authorized Signatory/Responsible Person.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Present: None for complainant.
None for opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
(ORDER BY MS. VANDNA SIDHU MEMBER):
As per complaint No. 171 of 2017, the complainant has purchased a Samsung Galaxy S7 edge mobile from Gagandeep Singh C/o Amit and Ashu Mittal resident of Ludhiana against Rs. 47,500/- on 27.1.2017 through receipt and Gagandeep Singh has purchased the same from Dhruv Electronics, Ludhiana vide bill bearing No. 1308 on 1.6.2016. After the purchase of mobile, the same was on line insured from the opposite party by the complainant after payment of Rs. 2,719.15 paise through on line banking from his SBI Account Branch Barnala and the complainant obtained an insurance policy relationship No. 1623191, Membership ID No. 1001201876 valid from 28.2.2017 to 27.2.2018, so the complainant is consumer of the opposite party.
2. It is further submitted that mobile of the complainant was damaged and claim was launched before the opposite party through mail but same was declined by the opposite party without any reason. The opposite party rejected the claim of the complainant with malafide intention which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of the opposite party which also caused financial loss, mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
3. The complainant launched the claim with the opposite party and also issued notice dated 9.6.2017 to the opposite party but the opposite party did not give any reply of notice, so this is a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of opposite party.
4. It is further submitted that the insurance of the said mobile was obtained by the complainant at Barnala and payment of the same was also transferred by the complainant from Barnala. Further, the mobile of the complainant was also damaged at Barnala, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this, so this Forum has got the jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present complaint.
Relief.-
The opposite party may be directed to.-
1) To pay the claim of Rs. 47,500/- as claim of insurance of mobile.
2) To pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation of humiliation and harassment of the complainant.
3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
4) Any other relief which this Forum may deem fit.
5. The notice was sent to the opposite party through RC AD on 23.1.2018 and initially none appeared on behalf of opposite party even after expiry of requisite period of 30 days, so the opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 9.3.2018 but later on opposite party appeared through their Advocate on 25.5.2018 and filed application for setting aside the exparte proceedings dated 9.3.2018. The above stated application with reason for non appearing of the opposite party within time in the above stated Forum and the above stated application is for joining the proceedings.
6. In order to prove his case the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice Ex.C-2, postal receipt Ex.C-3, copy of receipt regarding purchase of mobile Ex.C-4, copy of bill Ex.C-5, copy of account statement regarding payment of insurance Ex.C-6, copy of plan detail Ex.C-7, copies of mails regarding insurance and claim Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-17, copy of terms and conditions Ex.C-18 and closed the evidence.
7. We have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties in the present complaint and also have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by both the parties.
8. Ex.C-4 is receipt regarding purchase of mobile by Mr. Gagandeep Singh who is real owner of alleged mobile and complainant purchased through him on 27.1.2017 after paying Rs. 47,500/-. Alleged mobile was purchased on 1.6.2016 by the real owner from Ludhiana according to Ex.C-5. Complainant after purchasing of mobile it was insured by the opposite party after receiving the amount of Rs. 2,719.15 paise through on line banking from his SBI Account, Branch Barnala and complainant obtained an insurance policy relationship No. 1623191, Membership No. 1001201876 valid from 28.2.2017 to 27.2.2018, so by this way the complainant is consumer of the opposite party.
9. As per the complaint and Ex.C-1 the mobile of the complainant was damaged and claim was launched before the opposite party through mail which was rejected by the opposite party. Notice was sent to opposite party through RC AD on 23.1.2018 and opposite party was proceeded exparte vide order dated 9.3.2018 but later on opposite party appeared through their Advocate on 25.5.2018 and filed application for setting aside the exparte proceedings dated 9.3.2018. The above stated application with reason for non appearing of the opposite party within time in the above stated Forum and the above stated application is for joining the proceedings. Ex.C-6 is the copy of account statement regarding payment of insurance. After perusing minutely Ex.C-6 this fact came in the knowledge of this Forum that it is a copy of Account statement of Mr. Jigyasu Mittal son of Pawan Kumar and Rs. 2,719.15 paise was debited from the account of Mr. Jigyasu Mittal and transferred in favour of One Assist Consumer Solutions. Ex.C-7 is the copy of plan details in which it is mentioned that name of insured is Ashu Mittal, relationship Number is 1623191, membership number is 1001201876, plan name is MA Damage Protection 50K-62K, validity is 28.2.2017 to 27.2.2018 and registration of mobile number is 7837679879 and IMEI number is 357327071071787. Ex.C-9 proved communication between complainant and opposite party in regard of insurance of mobile. Ex.C-18 is copy of the terms and conditions which was provided to the complainant by the opposite party. Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-17 emails sent by the complainant to the opposite party and also sent legal notice Ex.C-2 in regard of making the payment of Rs. 47,500/- as claim of the insurance of mobile but he did not get any response from the opposite party.
10. In written arguments opposite party mentioned that the present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party because National Insurance Company Limited through whom the mobile in question insured is necessary and proper party for the adjudication of the present complaint. Further, the IMEI No. 357327071071787 was registered with the opposite party however the claim stage the mobile in question was not having the said IMEI number and not registered with the opposite party and therefore the claim was rejected. So, there is no deficiency in service. It is also mentioned in the written arguments that the liability of the opposite party is only limited to the insurance premium because the opposite party was only required to facilitate the registering and processing the claim of complainant with the insurance company and it was the insurance company which is to pay the insurance claim and not the opposite party. It is also enumerated in written arguments that the claim of the complainant was rejected being duplicate SR Case on 17.5.2017. Even earlier also on 13.4.2017 the claim of the complainant was rejected. These facts were not disclosed by the complainant, so by this way complainant concealed the material facts from this Forum.
11. Keeping in view the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to the extent to pay Rs. 2,719.15 paise to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till realization. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
8th Day of June 2018
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Vandna Sidhu) Member
