Case No.CC/372/19

Date of Institution:-    31.01.2020

Order Reserved on:- 09.07.2024

Date of Order:-  31.07.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Usha Sharma

R/o H. No.35 Munirka

NearPrtikMarkt

New Delhi - 110067

          …..Complainant

VERSUS

1. Raj Electronics

D-9, Mohan Singh Market

Sector-6, R. K. Puram,

New Delhi – 10022

2. OneAssist Consumer Solution Private Limited.

R/o 707-708-709,

Acme Plaza, Andheri Kurla Road,

Andheri (E) Mumbai

..…Opposite Parties

O R D E R

DR. HARSHALI KAUR, MEMBER

1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a mobile phone, MI-MOB-MOTE 5 PRO, from OP-1 on 09.06.2018.OP-1 additionally suggested that the complainant opt for an insurance policy covering damages, loss, and theft of her phone, as provided by OP-2. The complainant paid the sum of Rs.20,800/- for her phone, which she had gotten financed. OP-1 issued an invoice towards the aforementioned purchase, a copy of which the complainant has annexed with the complaint as Annexure-A.

2. On 21.06.2018, the complainant’s phone was stolen. She lodged an E-FIR with the Police (Annexure-B)regarding the theft of her phone on the same day.She also immediately reported the theft to OP-1 and 2 and submitted the requisite documents to process her claim.

3. When neither of the OPs made any effort to resolve the complainant’s grievance,she filed the present complaint before this Commission under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, praying for directions to the OPs to pay the cost of the mobile handset,i.e. Rs.20,800/-, Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment she suffered and Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges.

4. Notice was issued to OP-1 and OP-2 to file their reply. OP-1 did not file their reply despite putting in their appearance; hence, the defenceof OP-1 was struck off vide order dated 24.03.2023.

5. OP-2 filed their reply stating that no deficiency could be attributed to OP-2 as no cause of action has arisen qua OP-2.Undoubtedly, a claim was raised on23.06.2018 by the complainant, and the claim was processed by OP-2. The complainant was asked to submit the correct date of theft loss as per FIR, the age of the child and the SIM Barring form duly signed by the complainant.However, the documents were not uploaded by the complainant till 25.07.2018; therefore,her claim was closed on the ground that her claim “Exceeded 31 days” as per the terms and conditions of OP-2, agreed to by the complainant. OP-2, therefore, is under no liability for paying the claim amount. OP-2 has annexed the copy of theStandard terms and conditions with their reply on page no. 9 to page no 25 as Annexure-R1.

6. The complainant filed her rejoinder and evidence by way of an affidavit.When OP-2 chose not to file their affidavit in evidence despite several opportunities, the Commission proceededOP-2, ex-parte vide order dated 19.03.2024.The complainant filed her written arguments, and the Ld. Counsel for the complainant stated that the case may be decided based on material on record. Hence, the order was reserved.

7. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and have perused the documents filed by the contesting parties. We find that the complainant purchased a mobile handset MI & MOB-MOTE 5 PRO from OP-1 and simultaneously secured her new mobile against damages, loss and theft via an insurance policy offered by OP-2. OP-1 issued a consolidated invoice of Rs.20,800/- inclusive of the insurance cover, a copy of which the complainant has annexed with her complaint as Annexure-A dated 09.06.2018.

8. On 21.06.2018, i.e. only 12 days after this purchase, the complainant’s phone was snatched while it was being held by one “Aman Sharma”. She immediately lodged an E-FIR (Annexure-B) and informed OP-1 and 2 with all the requisite documents to process her claim to no avail.

9. The complainant filed the present complaint when the OPs did not process her genuine claim even though she kept requesting them to do so.

10. OP-1, the seller did not file any reply to the complaint; hence, thedefence of OP-1 was struck off. OP-2 filed their reply stating that they kept asking the complainant for information to process her claim, which the complainant did not provide. Hence, due to the complainant’s own delay and negligence, OP-2 closed her claim because the delay in sending the information was more than 31 days. OP-2, however, did not file their affidavit to prove their averments on record for reasons best known to them; hence,OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte.

11. We have no reason to disbelieve the complainant’s sworn testimony, as the defence of OP-1 is struck off, and OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte for failure to file their testimony despite adequate opportunities for reasons best known to them. Further,we have gone through the terms and conditionsannexed by OP-2 with their reply, and even though OP-2 has rejected the claim of the complainant as it exceeded 31 days, they have not filed a copy of the rejection letter/e-mail communication/intimation of the same sent to the complainant which in our view is tantamount to deficiency in service.

12. In light of the discussion above, we, therefore, allow the complaint and direct the OPs to jointly and severally pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and harassment she would have undoubtedly faced.OP-2 is further directed to process the complainant’s claim and pay the amount with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 31.01.2020. No other order as to cost as interest granted in the present case is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to the Record Room.
• Announced in the open Court on 31.07.2024.