Complaint filed on: 02.01.2016

Complaint Disposed on:04.02.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.

COMPLAINT NO.3/2016

DATED THIS THE 04^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

:PRESENT:

HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT

HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER

HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER

COMPLAINANT:

Smt.H.D Veena,

W/o Sri.H.B Ravi,

Aged about 40 years,

R/o 3^rd Cross, Housing Board,

Chikmagalur City-577102.

(By Sri/Smt. D.Druvanarayan, Advocate)

V/s

OPPONENTS:

1.     Pai International Electronics Ltd.,

        Head office, 28/A-1, 100 feet Road,

        Indira Nagar, Bangalore City.

2.     Pai International Electronics Ltd.,

        Branch at Chandra Towers,

        M.G Road, Chikmagalur-577101.

3.     Universal Insurance Broker Services

        Pvt. Ltd., S-26, 2^nd Floor, Esteem

        Mall Hebbal, Bangalore city.

4.     The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

        Connaught Road, Queens Road

        Cross, Bangalore city.

(OP-1 & 2-Exparte)

(OP-3 – in person)

(OP-4 – By Sri/Smt. N. Devendra Kumar., Advocate)

By Hon’ble Member Smt.H Manjula,

:O R D E R:

The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos. 1 to 4 alleging deficiency in service for not paying the insurance policy amount of the mobile handset. Hence, prays for direction against OP Nos. 1 to 4 to pay the mobile handset amount of Rs.16,900/- along with compensation for deficiency in service.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint is that:

The complainant has purchased Samsung G-7 102 Galaxy from Op no.2 on 14.01.2015 under invoice no.47392 for Rs.16,900/-, the 2^nd Op is the branch of the Op no.1 and 4 are insurance company to issued police at the time of purchase of the mobile handset from Op no.2, who covered the risk of theft, burglary and other damages vide policy No.421704/48/2015/695 which is valid for one year from the date of purchase.

On 01.08.2015 the complainant travelled in KSRTC bus from AIT circle to Chikmagalur KSRTC bus stand, the complainant had carried her mobile phone in her vanity bag, at that time she noticed that her mobile handset was stolen by some miscreants in the crowded bus, thereafter she searched in the bus and immediately she informed to her husband and in turn he lodged a complaint to town police station regarding theft of the mobile handset.

The said mobile handset was insured by Op no.4, So complainant claimed the compensation from Op no.4 and also Op no.3, who is the settling agency for claims on behalf of Op no.1 and 2. The Op no.4 refused to settle the claim, on the grounds that the cause of loss is not with in the insured peril. Thereafter the complainant approached the Op no.1 and 2 and explained the facts of covering mobile handset with insurance, but they did not responded properly to the request of the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against Op No.1 to 4 to pay the amount of mobile handset insured by the insurance policy with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.

3. After service of notice Op no.4 appeared through his counsel and filed version, Op no.3 appeared in person and Op no.1 and 2 not appeared before this forum, hence, Op no.1 and 2 placed exparte.

4. The complainant filed affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P5 and OP no.4 also filed affidavit and no documents marked.

5.     Heard the arguments:

6.     In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service in not settling an insurance amount of mobile handset to the complainant?
2.   Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?

7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

1. Point No.1: Affirmative.  
2. Point No.2: As per Order below. 

: R E A S O N S :

POINT NOs. 1 & 2:

8. There is no dispute that the complainant had purchased Samsung  G-7 102 Galaxy mobile handset from Op no.2 on 14.01.2015 by paying Rs.16,900/-. The invoice bill issued by Op no.2 with insurance policy towards as Ex.P1. The insurance policy to show theft, burglary covered by the policy marked as Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 is police complaint given by the husband of the complainant and endorsement given by the town police station is marked as Ex.P.4. It is not dispute that the mobile handset was stolen by unknown miscreants in the bus while travelling  when she approached Op no.4 for settlement, Op no.4 refused, hence, alleges deficiency in service and prays for compensation and also to pay the mobile handset amount of Rs.16,900/-.

9. On perusal of the affidavit sworn by the Op no.4, he is not ready to pay an amount Rs.16,900/- as risk not covered by the insurance policy and submits that no deficiency in service because police has not filed any FIR  in this regard. Hence, the Op has not settled the claim. The said contention is not acceptable by this forum because Op no.4 is not suppose to escape from his liability, because the insurance policy, covers the risk of  theft, burglary, etc., so FIR is not a mandatory here and also Op 3 is liable to pay compensation because his duty is to tell the fact of the case and convenience the Op 4, but op no.3 has failed to do his duty, The Op 1 and 2 are not liable to pay any compensation because they are only seller of the said mobile handset, 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 :

1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. Op no.4 is directed to pay the consideration mobile handset amount of Rs.16,900/-, further Op no.3 and 4 are directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,000/- each to the complainant for deficiency in service along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which 9% will be charged till the realization.
3. 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 04^th day of February 2017).

                                 (RAVISHANKAR)

                                      President

(B.U.GEETHA)                                         (H. MANJULA) 

     Member                                                    Member   

ANNEXURES

Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:

Ex. P1               -           Cash receipt of mobile handset

Ex.P2                -           Copy of the policy

Ex.P3                -           Complaint copy

Ex.P4                -           Endorsement

M.O.1               -           Repudiation letter

Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:

NIL

Dated:04.02.2017                          Member 

                                          District Consumer Forum,

                                                  Chikmagalur.            

RMA