C.C. No.115/2017

Sri Ranjan Kumar Behera,

S/o. Laxman Behera,

Vill.- Batimira,

P.O./P.S.- Biridi,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.                                                 ……………. Complainant

                           (Versus)

1. Regional Manager,

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Aloka Bharati Tower (Regional Office),

Bhubaneswar.

2. Proprietor,

Bhootnath Mobile World,

Plot No.87/8, Bapuji Nagar,

Bhubaneswar, Khurdha.

3. Branch Manager,

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Charchika Bazar,

At/P.O./P.S./Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.…..… Opposite parties

For Complainant………….Mr. D.G. Mohapatra, Advocate

For O.P. No.1………….Mr. D. Choudhury, Advocate

ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:

                                                                                                          JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed the consumer complaint U/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties to provide a new mobile or return the amount of mobile Rs.17,400/- with 12% interest per annum and pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.”

            Brief fact of the complainant is that, the complainant purchased a mobile set from the opposite party No.2  on 24.9.2016 by paying cost of Rs.17,400/- for the safety of the mobile the complainant insure the mobile with opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 and paid Rs.1,500/- in this regard. The insurance was having validity for a period of 1 year i.e. from 24.9.2016 to 23.9.2017. Due to misfortune the complainant met with an accident, in the said accident the complainant’s mobile fail down in the nearby drain and there after the mobile did not work and there after complainant submitted his claim from with opposite party No.1 on 29.5.2017. After claim the opposite party No.1 has taken away the mobile and assured to provide a new mobile or do proper repair. Since then till date the complainant made several attempt/contact before the opposite parties but they remained silent and also harass the complainant.

            The opposite party No.1 filed his written version stating as under;

            The mobile being a electronic product it’s manufacturer is a mandatory party and the present complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of the mobile as a party in the dispute claim petition. The handset has been checked by engineer those have pointed that as internally liquid damaged in PCB inspection by “After Recycling Private Ltd.” and they are of opinion that this is concerned under warranty. These facts also duly intimated to the complainant. As the fact as alleged never covers the mater policy.  

            The above case was heard by our predecessors and order was reserved on 24.01.2020 but order could not be pronounced for which the matter was again listed after our bench was constituted.

            Perused the records of both parties and found that complain ant has purchased the mobile from opposite party No.2 by paying Rs.17,400/- and the same was insured with opposite party No.1 & 3 during the period from 24.9.2016 to 23.9.2017 for a period of 1 year bearing policy No.95000046161100000001 by paying premium of Rs.1,500/- and the complainant lodged his claim vide claim No.PDMAY29254 dt.29.5.2017 after which the opposite party No.1 has taken the mobile and assured to provide a new mobile or to repair but failed to do so for which complainant served pleader notice on 25.9.2017 on opposite parties but the opposite parties paid a deaf ear to the pleader notice of the complainant.

            The opposite parties have objected on the ground of jurisdiction. We are conscious of the jurisdiction prescribed in 1986 and 2019. The matter relates to 2017 and pending since 7 years and if we will reject on the ground of jurisdiction it may not be fair as a period of 7 years has already passed and the new act gives liberty to file in any place where complainant resides or permanent resides or cause of action arises.

            So instead of giving liberty to file elsewhere, where cause of action arises after 7 years, we are directing the opposite party No.1 & 3 to pay 60% of the cost of mobile deducting 40% depreciation cost as the mobile is above 6 months as per the terms and condition of the policy. The opposite party No.1 & 3 shall pay Rs.2,000/- (Rs.1,000/- each) towards mental agony and Rs.1,500/- towards cost of litigation i.e. Rs.500/- for each opposite party i.e. opposite party No.1, 2 & 3. If the opposite parties shall not carry out the order within 45 days then it will carry interest @ 12% per annum and the opposite parties shall liable to be punished U/s.71 & 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of.            

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 26^th July,2024.