Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/69/2016

Kuldip Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.K. Mobile World - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar Adv.

19 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	69 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	29.1.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	19.7.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Kuldip Singh r/o H. No.42, Village Attawa, Chandigarh.

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1. R.K. Mobile World SCO No.461-462, Sector 35C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.
2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Bangalore Regional office 2-B, Unity Building Annexe, Mission Road, Bangalore 560027 through its authorized officer.
3. UB Insurance Associates (Apps daily claims Division), S 204-205, Suraj Plaza 196/8, 25^th cross 8^th Main Jayanagar 3^rd Block, Bangalore, Karnatka through its signatory.

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant         :     Sh. Devinder Kumar, Adv.

 

For OP No.1&3           :     Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv.

 

For OP No.2             :     Sukhdarshan Singh, Adv.  

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

         As per the case, the complainant purchased an HTC desire 620 G white mobile from Opposite Party No.1 and got the same insured from OPs No.2&3 covering theft, physical damage, burglary and liquid damage etc. by paying a sum of Rs.1599/-.   The said mobile of the complainant was stolen by some unknown person from the chamber of the complainant who is an Advocate by profession.  The complainant immediately lodged police complaint.  The complainant sent his claim form to Opposite Parties No.2&3 fulfilling other formalities. Thereafter on the asking of Opposite Party No.3 the complainant again sent the documents vide Annexure C-9.  It is pleaded that on  December, 2015 the complainant was informed telephonically by Opposite Party No.2 that his claim cannot be paid as the same is outside the scope of insurance policy as there was no forceful entry or breaking into the chamber of the complainant. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

2.     The Opposite Parties No. 1&3 in their joint reply stated the complainant was provided a complete kit containing the terms and conditions and the insurance.  It is admitted that the complainant adopted the procedure and has filled in the form for claiming the amount from Op No.2 i.e. New India Assurance Company and Opposite Party No.2 rejected the claim on the ground that there is no forceful entry in the said premises. As such there is no cause of action on the part of Opposite Party No.3. It is wrongly pleaded by the complainant that since the insurance was provided by Opposite Party No.3, therefore, it is solely responsible to indemnify the claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions.    It is submitted that Opposite Party No.3 only provides a software with the help of the same the customer can lodge his claim and get the  indemnification from insurance company. Pleading no deficiency on their part the answering OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.     Opposite Party No.2 the insurance company has admitted the issuance of the policy in question. It is asserted that the policy in question covers risk of theft, burglary and physical damage subject to terms and  conditions of policy. It is averred that the complainant did not take due care of his mobile as a result whereof the mobile in question was stolen from the office table of the complainant when he was busy in his work and thus the same is out of the scope of he policy terms and conditions. Claimed further that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 25.2.2016. Rest of the allegations have been denied being wrong.
4.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6.     The purchase of mobile in question is admitted and also there is no dispute regarding issuance of the insurance policy in question by Opposite Party No.2 covering theft, burglary physical and liquid damage etc. In the same way theft of the said insured  handset and thereafter lodging of claim with OP No.2 by the complainant is also not disputed.
   According to the complainant his claim was rejected by Opposite Party No.2 on the ground that there was no forceful entry or breaking of into the chamber of the complainant and since the complainant failed to take due care of his mobile therefore, his claim is outside the purview of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy availed by the complainant.  
7.     After going through the record and the submissions of the parties, we are of the view that undoubtedly the insured mobile of the complainant was stolen from his chamber and in our concerted view the said risk was covered under the given policy.  It is also admitted by the OPs that the handset in question was covered under the policy for theft, burglary despite liquid and physical damage.. The term  ‘theft’  is defined under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code as under:-

 

“Whoever, intending to take dishonetly any moveable property out of the possesssion of any person without that persons’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to comitt theft.”

 

    The theft of the mobile in question duly covers all the ingredients of theft as defined under Section 378 of IPC mentioned above. There is no requirement of any forcible entry in order to commit theft; only the malafide intention coupled with an overt act causing wrongful loss to other without that person’s consent is sufficient to bring it under the definiton of theft.  Theft can be committed secretly by someone even from the pocket of a person. Thus, the reason to refuse the claim of the complainant is no more tenable. Even otherwise the Opposite Party No.2 failed to produce on record the terms and conditions wherefrom it can be seen that in order to commit theft forceful entry in the premises is a preconditon.   Thus, we conclud that the Opposite Party No.2 wrongly rejected the claim of the complainant and it is liable to indemnify the claim of the complainant. Hence we find enough merit in this complaint and the same deserves to be allowed as deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 is proved for wrongly rejecting the genuine claim of the complainant.   

8.     In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party No.2 is directed as under:-

        

 

a]  To pay Rs.16000/- to the complainant, the price of the handset in question towards his claim.

 

b]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

 

C]  To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite party No.2 within 30 days of its receipt, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest on the above awarded amounts at (a) &(b) @12% p.a. from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses.

 

    The complaint agaisnt OPs No.1&3 stands dismissed.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

19.7.2016  

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER