Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/655/2019

Arvind Kumar Tripathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Nitin Bhasin Adv.

24 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	655 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	22.07.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	24.04.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Arvind Kumar Tripathi s/o Sh.Anirudh Pati Tripathi, 2323, Sector 31-C, Chandigarh 160031

            …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Reliance Retail Limited, Elante Mall, Shop No.247, Second Floor, Industrial and Business Park, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002

2]  Airtel Secure, Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh 160101

3]  Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, 6^th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001

4]  Airtel Secure, OneAssist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., P.O. Box No.7417, J B Nagar Post Office, J B Nagar, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400059

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

Argued by:-     Ms.Kusum Kaushik, Adv. for Sh.Nitin Bhasin, Counsel of complainant

Sh.Rajat Pabbi, Adv. proxy for Sh.Sanjeev Pabbi, Counsel of OPs No.1 & 2

Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel of OP No.3

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. Proxy for Sh.S.R.Bansal, Counsel of OP No.4.

 

 

PER  B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

        The case of the complainant briefly is that he purchased one mobile set i.e. Samsung Note-9 128 GB from OP No.1 for Rs.67,900/- on 14.9.2018 (Ann.C-1), carrying one year warranty and also got it insured from OP No.2-Airtel Secure for sum insured of Rs.40,000/- valid from 16.9.2018 to 15.9.2019 (Ann.C-2).  It is stated that the complainant was assured that the mobile handset in question is insured for any accidental or liquid damage etc. per policy. 

        It is submitted that on 18.5.2019, the complainant’s insured mobile phone in question was accidently damaged, at workplace, while it was in his pocket.  The complainant reported the loss/damage of the mobile handset in question to the OPs NO.1 & 2 and sought insured value.  It is stated that the OP No.2 after exchange of correspondence with the complainant, ultimately repudiated his claim vide letter dated 21.5.2019 saying that the reason for damage is not clear (Ann.C-3).  It is submitted that though the OPs assured the complainant at the time of insuring the mobile handset in question about the reimbursing the claim, if any, but still the OPs have repudiated the claim on flimsy & false grounds. Hence, this complaint has been preferred alleging the above said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  

 

2]      The OP No.1-Reliance Retail Ltd. has filed written version and while admitting the sale of the mobile phone in question, stated that OP No.2 is engaged in providing insurance and is separate legal entitled from OP NO.1. It is stated that OP No.1 has nothing to do with the insurance company of the mobile phone in question. It is also stated that the complainant admittedly approached the OP NO.2 for his claim. Denying other allegation being not related to and for want of knowledge, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

        The OP NO.2 did not file written version to the complaint and instead preferred to file an application for deletion of its name and an application impleading M/s Airtel Secure, OneAssist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, stating that it did not deal in any insurance business and prayed for impleading M/s Airtel Secure, OneAssist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai being concerned party.

        The Opposite Party No.3 has filed written version stating that the complaint is regarding physical damage to the handset of the complainant which has been insured by OP No.2, therefore, answering OP has not liability due to be discharged in favour of the complainant. It is stated that the complainant himself has admitted that the handset was physically damaged and in case of physical damage, the warranty of the handset becomes void.  It is submitted that the grievance of the complaiant is regarding insurance policy, which he availed from OP No.2 and thus, answering OP has no role to play in the insurance claim of the complainant.  Denying other allegations, the OP No.3 has prayed for dismissal of complaint qua it.

        The Opposite Party No.4- OneAssist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., has also filed written version stating that the complainant is not a consumer qua OP No.4 as the Ann.C-1 attached with the complaint shows that the customer name is Sh.Rohit Tripathi and not the complainant name.  It is stated that the complainant has not filed the purchased bill to show ownership of the mobile set in question.  It is also stated that the insurance of the mobile handset was subject to its terms & conditions.  It is denied that the mobile was damaged accidently.  However, upon receipt of the claim on 17.5.2019, the same was verified and after verification, the claim was rightly rejected as the same was found under the exclusion clause “mysterious circumstances” i.e. Loss or damage to gadget due to mysterious circumstances. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the OP No.4 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]      We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including written arguments.

 

5]      The grievance of the complainant is that his insurance claim for damage in respect of the mobile phone in question, so purchased by him from OP No.1 on 14.9.2018, was wrongly repudiated by OP Insurance Company on the ground that the damage reported by him is not clear, while the OP No.4-Insurance Company took objection that the complainant is not consumer qua it as the mobile in question was sold to one Rohit Tripathi and not to the complainant - Arvind Kumar.   

 

6]      The perusal of the file reveals that the bill placed on record by the complainant himself as Ann.C-1 about the purchase of the mobile in question shows it to be in the name of ROHIT TRIPATHI and not the complainant- Arvind Kumar.  As the complainant is not the owner/purchaser of the mobile phone in question, so he has no locus standi to raise any claim, whatsoever, in the respect of that product/mobile phone or to file the present complaint in that respect, not being a consumer qua OPs and thus, the present complaint is not maintainable.

 

7]      Taking into consideration the above facts & circumstances of the case as well as finding, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being not maintainable. No order as to costs.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

24^th April, 2023             

                                                                              Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER