1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 16.10.2018 he purchased one LG LED T.V. bearing no. 49LJ523T 710PLQN022332 from O.P.No.1 vide invoice no. 1423 for Rs. 55,000/- and insured the same through O.P.No.1 with the O.P. No.3 vide certificate no. 2945/00000300/000/00. The allegations of complainant is that on 18.05.2019 due to fire Accident, the entire house hold articles caught hold fire and immediately he reported the matter to the concerned Fire Station and registered a report vide n. 20/19 dated 18.05.2019, for which he lodged a complaint to O.Ps, but none took any steps to compensate him, thus alleging deficiency in service, he filed this case with a prayer for refund of costs of alleged T.V. being insured with O.P.No.3 and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation and costs.

2. Though the O.P.No.1 & 2 received the notice, but did not choose to appear in the case neither filed their counter version nor also participated in the hearing, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them, and the allegations made against them remained unchallenged and unrebuttral.

3. O.P.No. 3 appeared through their Ld. Counsel, filed their counter version admitting the issuance of insurance policy, have denied the allegations contending that the complainant has disclosed the policy number without date of issue which is not tallied with the insurance company and has not submitted any documents before them and with other contentions denying their liability, prayed to dismiss the case.

4. Complainant filed copy of retail invoice, insurance certificate against the alleged product and fire incident certificate issued by Station Officer, Malkangiri Fire Station, Dist. Malkangiri, whereas the O.P. No.3 did not choose to file any documents.  Heard from the complainant as well as the A/R for O.P. No.3 at length.  Perused the case record and material documents available therein.

5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the alleged LG LED T.V. bearing no. 49LJ523T 710PLQN022332 from O.P.No.1 vide invoice no. 1423 for Rs. 55,000/- and insured the same through O.P.No.1 with the O.P. No.3 vide certificate no. 2945/00000300/000/00.  Complainant filed copy of retail invoice and insurance certificate to prove his allegations.  The allegations of complainant is that on 18.05.2019 due to fire break out, the entire house hold articles caught hold fire and immediately he reported the matter to the concerned Fire Station and registered a report vide n. 20/19 dated 18.05.2049.Complainant also filed the certificate from the concerned Station Officer, Malakngiri Fire Station to prove his allegations.It is also alleged that he lodged a complaint to O.P.No.1 for insurance claim, but the O.P. did not take any steps to cooperate him, thus alleged deficiency in service on their part.Since the O.P. No.1 did not appear throughout the proceeding, we lost every opportunities to hear from him to come to a conclusion that whether the complainant has lodged claim with him or not.Hence we have no option to disbelieve the versions of complainant.Though the O.P.No.3 has challenged the allegations stating that the said incident is not in their knowledge, but have not filed cogent evidence from their channel partner i.e. O.P.No.1 who insured the alleged product with them.Hence the allegations of complainant is well established and remained unrebuttal from the side of O.Ps.In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”

6. Further, at the time of hearing, the O.P.No.1 was totally absent on repeated call, for which we lost opportunities to come to know that whether the submissions of the O.P.No. 3 contains any truth or not, as such their contentions was taken into consideration regarding to the fact that the alleged incident was not in their knowledge.  But did not challenge in their counter version regarding the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant.  Though the O.P.No. 3 have challenged the same at the time of hearing, but to make it contrary, they did not adduce any evidence to that effect by producing the complaint register maintained with them, therefore, the allegations of complainant is well established, so also the absence of the O.P.No.1 makes the averments of complainant strong and vital.

7. Further, the alleged T.V. was got fully damaged due to fire breaks which was occurred during the valid insurance policy period as such the complainant prayed for the cost of the alleged T.V. from the O.Ps.  Though the submissions of complainant was challenged by the A/R for O.P.No. 3 contending that without proving of deficiency of service, the case is not maintainable, but to prove their contentions, the O.P. No.3 was supposed to produce their complaint book / complaint register either by manually or through online systems and without such evidence, the plea of O.P.No.3 will not sustain.  We feel, whenever the O.P.No.3 came to know about the damage of alleged T.V. due to fire incident, immediately they should provide their cooperation to the complainant, as they have legal obligation to the complainant and without providing their best service, they have taken such plea which will not help them in any angle.

8. Further it is the prime duty of the O.P. No.1 on the day when he received the complaint from the complainant to lodge a claim with O.P.no.3, immediately, he was supposed to intimate the O.P.No. 3 for providing better service to their genuine customer.  Further it is seen that in the present locality, the customers who purchase any products and if found defects or any problems or any mishappen, first they depend on the shop from which they purchase the products to avail proper service.  But without providing better service, as per the norms of the company, the O.P. No.1 indulged himself in corrupt practice of only selling the products which is not permissible as per law.  It is the bounden duty of the O.P. No.1 to intimate the said fact to the O.P.No3, as the O.P.No. 1 is acting like as an agent of O.P.No.3.For any fault of the O.P.No.1, if complainant is suffers in regard to insurance claim, it is duty of O.P.No.3 to settle the matter immediately, but in the present case in hand, the O.P. No. 3 without settling the matter, have taken such plea, which will not help them in any angle.

9. Considering the above discussions, we feel, the complainant deserves to be compensated for non providing better service by the O.Ps, as the complainant must have suffered some mental agony, sustained financial loss and physical harassment, for which he was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses.  Considering his sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation will meet the ends of justice.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                                       ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part and the O.P. No. 3 being the insurer of the alleged T.V. is herewith directed to pay the insured value of the T.V. i.e. of Rs. 55,000/- to the complainant alongwith Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the insured amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from 18.05.2019 till payment.

        Since no specific allegations made out against the O.P. No.2, no order against them.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25^th day of November, 2021.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.