Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/98/2017

Vivek Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop. Top Shop - Opp.Party(s)

A.S Marothia

15 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,FATEHABAD.

                                                               Complaint No.:98 of 2017.                                                                                                            Date of Instt.: 02.05.2017.

                                                               Date of Order: 15.10.2018.

 

Vivek Kumar son of Mahender Singh, resident of Dhani Binja Lamba, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

 

                                                                   …Complainant.

 

                             Versus

 

1. Prop. Top Shop, Near Gurunanak Kitab Ghar, Palika Bazar, Fatehabad.

 

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, 87 M.G. Road, Fort, Munbai.

 

3. YMS Mobitech Pvt. Ltd., B-69, Sector-64, Nodia, 201301, 011-39586454.

 

 

                                                                   …Respondents/OPs

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

 

Before:                Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                            Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.

Dr. Rajni Goyat, Member.

                            

Present:               Sh. A.S. Marothia, Adv. for the complainant.

                            Sh. N.D. Mittal, Adv. for OP no. 2.

                            OP no. 1 already exparte.

 

ORDER

                             The present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he purchased a mobile phone (VIVO V5) from OP no. 1 for an amount of Rs. 17,980/- on 31^st of January 2017 by making a payment in cash.  The OP no. 1 also issued a warranty for proper functioning of the said mobile handset for one year from the date of purchase.  It is further submitted that at the time of purchase of the mobile handset the complainant had also obtained insurance of the same and an amount of Rs. 1990/- was paid by the complainant to OP no. 1.

2.                          It is further submitted that on 4.4.2017 the said mobile phone was stolen from the pocket of the complainant at Peeragarhi Metro Station and regarding the incident an FIR was lodged by him in the concerned police station.  Therefore, the complainant visited the shop of OP no. 1 and informed regarding the incident and also deposited the relevant documents demanded by OP no. 1 for settlement of the claim.

3.                          It is further submitted that on 15.4.2017 the complainant received an email regarding the rejection of the insurance claim on the ground that a correction was found in date of invoice.  It is further submitted that a genuine claim of the complainant has been rejected by OPs on a baseless ground and the said act amounts to deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to him.  The complainant has further prayed for replacement of the mobile handset or refund Rs. 17,980/- paid by the complainant for purchase of the handset in question.  The complainant has further prayed for grant of compensation and litigation cost in his favour.

4.                          OP no. 1 did not appear before this Forum despite proper service.  Therefore, he was proceeded exparte on 7.6.2017.

5.                          On being served the OP no. 2 appeared and filed written statement, wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action etc. have been raised.

6.                          In reply on merits, it is submitted that the complainant has given false and fabricated facts.  It is further submitted that in para no. 2 of the complaint the date of purchase of mobile is shown to be as 31.1.2017.  However, in para number (nil) the date of purchase has been mentioned as 15.8.2016.  The complainant has mentioned two different dates of purchase of the mobile in question.  From the same, it is evident that the date of invoice has been changed or corrected by the complainant. Therefore, the claim is not payable under such circumstances.  It is further submitted that the present complaint is without any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7.                          The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Exhibit C-1 and the documents as Annexure 1 to Annexure 6.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP no. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Karan Singh Senior Divisional Manager as Ex. RW1/A and document as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence of the OP no. 2.

8.                          We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record.  The insurance claim of the complainant has been resisted by OP no. 2 only on the ground that the complainant in para no. 2 of the complaint has mentioned the date of purchase of the handset in question as 31.1.2017 whereas in para no. 4 he has made correction of the date of purchase of the handset in question from 15.8.2016 to 31.1.2017.  It is further the case of the OP no. 2 that the complainant has changed the date of purchase of mobile in the invoice as is evident from the claim rejection letter.  However, in support of its contention that the complainant has changed the date of purchase of the handset in question in the invoice no document or evidence has been produced by OP no. 2.  Copy of invoice of the handset dated 31.1.2017 is placed on file as Annexure 1.  From perusal of the same, it is revealed that there is no cutting/tampering or correction in the same.  Therefore, the ground taken by OP no. 2 for rejection of the insurance claim of the complainant is not tenable.

9.                          In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present complaint is allowed against OP no. 2.  The OP no. 2 is directed for making payment of the insurance claim to the complainant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy after making the requisite deductions.  The OP no. 2 is also further directed for making a payment of Rs. 3100/- as compensation and litigation charges.  The present order be complied with within a period of 30 days, otherwise the amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the default period. A copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost as provided in the rules.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum: 

Dt.15.10.2018.                                 

 

       

(Rajni Goyat)  (Jasvinder Singh)                           (Raghbir Singh)

          Member                Member                            President                                                                                       DCDRF, Fatehabad.

                                               

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:               Sh. A.S. Marothia, Adv. for the complainant.

                            Sh. N.D. Mittal, Adv. for OP no. 2.

                            OP no. 1 already exparte.

 

Arguments concluded.  To come upon 15.10.2018 for orders.

 

   President

                                                                                3.10.2018                     

  Member                  Member              

 

Present:               Sh. A.S. Marothia, Adv. for the complainant.

                            Sh. N.D. Mittal, Adv. for OP no. 2.

                            OP no. 1 already exparte.

 

        Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, the present complaint is disposed of. File be consigned after due compliance.

Announced:15.10.2018

(Raghbir Singh)

   President

     (Rajni Goyat)           (Jasvinder Singh)                                                                      

Member                    Member