Complaint filed on: 18.04.2016
Complaint Disposed on:20.05.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.50/2016
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MAY 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT H.MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., -MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
H.T.Sunilkumar S/o H.G.Thammaiah,
Aged about 36 years, Advocate,
R/o KHB EQ 27, KHB Colony,
Chikmagalur City.
(By Sri/Smt. Hareesh Singatagere, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Leo Shopping Complex, 3rd Floor,
No.44/45, Residency Road Cross,
Bangalore-560025.
2. Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.,
M.G. Road, Chikmagalur City.
3. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Basavanahalli Main Road,
Chikmagalur City.
(OP No.3 By Sri/Smt.N.Devendra Kumar, Advocate)
(OP No.1 & 2 -Exparte)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos.1 to 3 alleging deficiency in service in not settling the claim towards theft of the mobile handset. Hence, prays for direction against Op no.1 to 3 to settle the claim towards theft of the mobile handset along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant had purchased I8262-Galaxy Core-1.1 mobile handset of Samsung make from 2nd Op on 31.12.2013 and paid Rs.13,057/- to Op. At the time of purchase of the mobile handset it was insured with Op no.1 by Op no.2 and Op no.2 assured the complainant that policy covers all types of loss of the mobile handset. The Op no.3 is the branch office of the Op no.1 company, who insured the mobile handset through Op no.2.
Such being the case on 19.10.2014 the complainant while alighting from bus at KSRTC bus stand, Chikmagalur it was stolen by unknown person from the pocket of the complainant, in this regard complainant immediately lodged a complaint before Town Police, Chikmagalur on 20.10.2014 as he was in urgent to visit the Bangalore could not lodge a complainant on the same day. Thereafter the complainant filed a claim from Op no.1 & 2 for the theft of the mobile handset as it was not traced out. But Op no.1 & 2 instead of settling the claim of the complainant have repudiated the claim through letter dated 13.11.2014, the Op no.1 & 2 have rejected the claim without any valid reason and on flimsy ground.
Hence, the complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and prays for settlement of the claim along with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op no.1 and 2 not appeared before this Forum. Hence placed exparte. Op no.3 appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that they have issued a policy to the mobile handset purchased by complainant and their liability is subject to terms, conditions and exclusions of the policy. It is categorically mentioned in the policy that “If the equipment is stolen from the insured person where the thief has used violence or force against him or seriously threatened to use violence”.
Further the terms and conditions states that, “If the handset is stolen while traveling in the public transport, police acknowledgement should contain the details of offence with details of handset/transport route details”. But whereas in this case the police have not given the details with respect to the theft of the mobile handset, in the police endorsement the police have only given endorsement stating mobile handset was lost and not given any details with respect to the bus from which complainant was alighting. Hence, there is a doubt with respect to the theft of the mobile handset, hence, it is clear case of violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the claim made by complainant was rejected as per policy terms and conditions and there is no deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.3. Op No.3 also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1and R.2.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Affirmative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased one Samsung mobile handset from Op no.2 by paying Rs.13,057/- on 31.12.2013, at the time of purchase Op no.2 had insured the mobile handset against theft and other loss from Op no.1 and issued a policy with that respect. Such being the case on 19.10.2014 the mobile handset of the complainant was stolen by some miscreants while he was alighting a bus at KSRTC bus stand, Chikmagalur. In this regard he had given a police complaint on 20.10.2014. Subsequently, he claimed a compensation for theft of the mobile handset from Op no.1 to 3, but Op no.1 to 3 instead of settling the claim have repudiated the claim for the reason that no details with respect to the mobile handset and transportation was furnished by police endorsement. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and prays for settlement of the claim.
9. The complainant filed affidavit and marked Repudiation letter as Ex.P.1, Copy of the Police Complaint as Ex.P.2. Police endorsement given by Town Police station, Chikmagalur as Ex.P.3. Op no.3 also filed affidavit and marked Policy issued in the name of Op no.2 towards mobile handset as Ex.R.1.
10. On going through the Ex.P.2 we noticed that the complainant has categorically given a police complaint with respect to the theft of mobile handset. For which the Town Police Station has given an endorsement simply stating that it was stolen and no details have been explained by said police station. But basing on the said endorsement given by Town Police Station Ops repudiated the claim. We are of the opinion that Ops rendered deficiency in service in not considering the Police complaint given by complainant to the Town Police Station as per Ex.P.2. The complainant in his police complaint has categorically explained the mobile handset description and reason for theft of the mobile handset. The said details are very much sufficient to settle the claim of the complainant, whereas Ops rendered deficiency in service in not settling the claim of the complainant. The Ops after receipt of the claim/information would have investigated the matter, but they have not done so, inspite of that they have simply repudiated the claim on the flimsy grounds, stating the police have not informed details. Hence, Op no.1 & 3 being the insurers are liable to pay the compensation towards theft of the mobile handset of the complainant.
11. The Op no.2 is only a seller of the mobile handset, who insured the mobile handset at the time of sale. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op no.2 as alleged by complainant. Hence, the complaint against Op no.2 is liable to be dismissed.
12. The Op no.1 & 3 are liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- for deficiency in service in repudiating the theft claim of the complainant along with Rs.1,000/- litigation expenses to the complainant. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
- OP Nos.1 & 3 are directed to settle the claim towards theft of the mobile handset and also pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand Rupees only) along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand Rupees only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which 9% P.A. interest will be charged till realization.
- The complaint against Op no.2 is dismissed.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 20th day of May 2017).
(H.MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 - Repudiation letter.
Ex.P.2 - Copy of the Police Complaint dtd:20.10.2014.
Ex.P.3 - NCR given by Town Police Station, Chikmagalur.
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
Ex.R.1 - Certified copy of the policy.
Ex.R.2 - Authorization letter.
Dated:20.05.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
