DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No. 56/2016
Shri Amar Singh
S/o Shri Sonya Ram
R/o House No.578,
Sunlight Colony-2,
Ashram, New Delhi ….Complainant
Versus
- M/s Range Tele Services
Through its Manager/ Prop./A.R.
K-17, LGF, Alankar Road,
Lajpat Nagar-II,
New Delhi-110024
- M/s The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Through its BM/Manager/ AR
Rajendra Palace, 6th Floor,
Apps Daily Office, PNB Building
Karol Bagh, New Delhi. ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 25.02.16 Date of Order : 13.06.19
Coram:
Sh. A.S. Yadav, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member - Kiran Kaushal
- Succinctly put, the complainant Amar Singh purchased a Samsung Mobile phone for Rs.10,000/- from M/s Range Tele Services (OP-1) and got the mobile insured by ‘Daily Assure Plus’ and paid Rs.599/- for the same. Retail invoice of purchase and insurance dated 26.08.2015 is annexed as Annexure-1. The representative of OP-1 and M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) assured the complainant that he was being provided the extended warranty for theft and liquid and accidental damages etc. OPs also agreed to give the complainant cashless protection plan and to provide the services of pick and drop facility of the handset from the complainant’s premises.
1.1 It is averred that on 19.11.2015 the mobile handset in question was stolen from the car of the complainant. Complainant got an FIR lodged on 20.11.2015 regarding the same. Copy of the FIR is annexed as Annexure-2. Thereafter, the complainant informed OP-1 and OP-2 on the customer toll free number regarding the mobile phone being stolen.
1.2 It is next averred that as per the advice of customer care executive of OP-2 complainant physically visited and submitted the requisite documents for reimbursement of his claim on 20.11.2015. Thereafter, the complainant made several calls and visited the office of OP-2 but all in vain. Finally OP-2 refused to refund the claim amount stating that the mobile phone was stolen from the complainant’s car due to his negligence. It is averred that OPs after discussion and assurances repudiated the claim on very frivolous ground hence the present complaint with the prayer to direct OP to refund the bill amount of Rs.11,099/- with interest. Further it is prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental torture, pain and agony and Rs.20,000/- for litigation charges.
- OP-2 resisted the complaint inter-alia stating that the present complaint is not maintainable as such the reported / alleged loss of the mobile handset is not covered under the insurance policy. It is submitted that the loss of the alleged mobile handset is out of the scope of the policy terms and conditions which states, the insurance is not liable for loss :-
“loss of mobile handset due to theft from vehicle unless the doors/ windows and other opening are securely locked and properly fastened. Due to the negligence / misconduct of insured / the intentional act or willful neglect of to the insured/ overloading of the instruments”.
It is submitted that the claim of the mobile handset is not payable because as per claimants statement mobile was stolen from the car and there is no evidence of breaking the doors / windows. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost.
- Rejoinder to the written statement of OP-2 is filed by the complainant wherein facts of the complaint are reiterated. Evidence by way of affidavit is filed by the complainant. Evidence of Shri U.K. Aggarwal Senior Divisional Manager has been filed on behalf OP-2.
- Written arguments have been filed by OP-2.
- Arguments on behalf of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP-2 have been heard.
- On perusal of the repudiation letter annexed as Annexure OP-2 it is noticed that the claim for the disputed mobile handset has been repudiated on the ground that as per the claimant’s statement/ police certification mobile was stolen from the car. There is no evidence of breaking the doors/ windows. Therefore, insurer is not liable for the loss.
- As per the untraced report filed by the SHO which has been accepted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, it is revealed that the said report is being filed as there is no clue about culprits and stolen property. From the said untraced report it is evidently clear that the said mobile handset was considered to be a stolen property by the police and by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Hence, we are of the opinion that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim by stating that the said property was not stolen as there was no evidence for breaking of windows or doors.
- Further it is not the complainant’s case that his handset got stolen due to his negligence or misconduct or the intentional act or willful neglect or overloading of the instrument. The complainant’s case is that he was conned or mischief was played on him wherein one fellow came in front of his car posing to be an accident victim and when the complainant came out from his vehicle to attend to the boy who fell in front of his car, the second boy from behind opened the door of the vehicle and took away the mobile phone. The said incident is reported in the FIR annexed with the complaint. It is next noticed that the insurance was facilitated by OP-1 by permitting OP-2 to use its space which is evident from the address given in the invoice.
- Therefore, this Forum is of the opinion that having insured the mobile handset OPs are liable to indemnify the complainant. We allow the complaint and direct OP-1 and OP-2 jointly and severely to pay the cost of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.10,000/- and Rs.599/- payment made towards insurance with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase till realization. Additionally we direct OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- by way of compensation for causing harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.
- OPs are directed to pay the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the OPs shall become liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.10,599/- from the date of purchase till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 13.06.19.
