DATE OF FILING                    :     13.02.2017.

DATE OF S/R                            :      20.04.2017.

DATE OF  ORDER                  :      11.12.2017.

Sri Sambhu Jana,

son  of Brindaban Jana,   

residing at  55, Baje Shibpur Road, 4^th floor,

P.S. Shibpur, District Howrah,

PIN 711 102….………………….………………………….……..…… COMPLAINANT.

• Versus   -

1.         Reliance Retail Ltd.,

Avani Riverside Mall,

32, Jagat Banerjee Road, P.O. & P.S. Shibpur,

District Howrah,

PIN 711102. 

2.         National Insurance Company Ltd.,

c/o. M/s. Warranty and Insurance Administration Services,

( W and IA Services )

342, Vardhaman DEE CEE Plaza, Plot no. 07 ( ground floor ),

Sector 11, Dwarka,

New Delhi 11005.  …………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

P    R    E     S    E    N     T

Hon’ble President :  Abdul Kuddus.

Hon’ble Member : Shri Sajal Kanti Jana.

Hon’ble Member :  Smt. Banani Mohanta ( Ganguli ).

F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

Facts of the case of the complainant, in short, is that complainant  purchased one Samsung phone being model no. Samsung A – 7, IMEI no. 356825076976919 from the o.p. no. 1, Reliance Retail Ltd.,  Avani Riverside Mall, 32, Jagat Banerjee Road, P.O. & P.S. Shibpur, Howrah, on 30.6.2016 and same was insured in o.p. no. 2 / insurance company. On 28.11.2016 this complainant was  travelling in a bus along with the said mobile phone which was lost/ stolen  on that date.

Complainant lodged intimation / FIR at Shibpur P.S. on 30.11.2016 and informed the fact of theft of said insured mobile phone to o.p. no. 2 / insurer.  Thereafter this complainant submitted his claim to the o.p. no. 2, insurance company. The insurance company has not paid any amount to the complainant of the insured mobile phone.

So this complainant has filed this complaint and prays for passing order directing o.p. no. 2 to pay the insurance coverage of the said mobile phone to the tune of  Rs. 29,200/- along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for his  harassment and Rs. 20,000/- for  litigation costs and also prays for other reliefs.  

In this case, o.ps. have not appeared to contest this case; so this case has been heard ex parte against them.

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

Heard ld. advocate for the complainant. Perused the petition of complaint and the documents filed and BNA filed by complainant. It appears from documents under caption “National Insurance Company Ltd. Theft & Accidental Damage Certificate”, it appears that the case mobile phone was purchased at Rs. 29,900/-, on 08.7.2016 and same was insured in the o.p. no. 2 insurance company by the complainant. It also reveals from the overleaf of this insurance coverage certificate that this mobile phone was insured against theft or any damage during “first year” ( 365 days ) from the 7^th day of purchase. Case mobile phone was purchased on 08.07.2016 and this insurance coverage of the case mobile have become effective from 7^th days from the date of purchase i.e., from 15.07.2016. Case mobile phone was stolen / lost on 28.11.2016 i.e., during the effective period of insurance coverage. So complainant submitted his claim to o.p. no. 2 insurer within time limit and this claim bonafide. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 have not contested their case. Both the o.ps. also have not filed any written version.Moreover, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the unchallenged contents of petition of complainant as well as documents filed by complainant in support of his case.

In view of observation of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2016 ( 3 ) CPR page 89 ( NC ) interalia that a bonafide claim cannot be repudiated by insurance company.”

In the present case we hold that the complainant has been able to prove his case and also his claim against o.p. no. 2, insurance company. On the other hand o.ps. have not appeared to contest this case by filing written version.

So in view of observation of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2017(4) CPR page 148 ( NC) interalia that “failure of the o.ps. to contestcase as well as default of the o.ps. in filing written version amounts to admission of allegation as made by complainant.” So we hold that such conduct of o.ps. like non filing of written version as well as failure to contest this case amounts to admission of allegation made in this consumer complaint against them and there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of o.p. no. 2, insurance company,in the matter of repudiation of claim of complainant.

We do not pass any award regarding payment of insurance coverage againsto.p. no. 1 as case mobile phone has not been insured under o.p. no. 1 company.O.p. no. 1 also has no role in the matter of repudiation of case claim in respect of mobile phone. So he has got no liability to pay any amount against claim in respect of insurance coverage. So this complaint is liable to be dismissed against o.p. no. 1.

We also hold that o.p. no. 2 / insurance company cannot repudiate bonafide claim as alleged in this case by complainant. So complainant is entitled to realize the insured amount of case mobile phone from o.p. no. 2 / insurance company.

Considering the other facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that is Rs. 2,000/- is awarded as compensation for harassment and mental agony of complainant and Rs. 1,000/- is awarded as litigation costs then none would be prejudiced.

In the result, the complaint case  succeeds.  

Hence,

          O     R     D      E      R      E        D   

      That the C. C. Case No. 39 of 2017 ( HDF 39 of 2017 )  be  and the same is hereby allowed ex parte  against o.p. no. 2 with cost and dismissed ex parte against o.p. no. 1; but without cost.  

      The o.p. 2, insurance company, is hereby directed to pay price of the case mobile phone to the extent of Rs. 29,200/- to the complainant by 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of judgment;  failing which it will carry simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date expiry of 30 days as mentioned above  till its full realization.

      The o.p. no. 2 is hereby further directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs by 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

      If o.p. no. 2 / insurance company files to pay the amount awarded above within the stipulated period,  then complainant is at liberty to realize the same with due course of law.

      Let a  plain copy of the judgment  be given to the petitioner  free of costs, and other plain copies  also be served upon both  the o.ps. by  registered post / speed post with A.D. as early as possible.  

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    Abdul Kuddus )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.