Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/724

Dharam Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

MS Sethi adv

31 Mar 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 724 dated 07.12.2018.                                                        Date of decision: 31.03.2022.

 

Dharam Raj Rampal, Advocate 56 years S/o. Amir Chand Rampal, r/o.8-J, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                             ..…Complainant

•  

1. Reliance Retail Limited, Lower Ground Floor, MBD Neopolis Mall, adjoining RajGuru Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through authorized Signatory.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., D O-1, near Life Line Hospital, Gill Road, Ludhiana through Sr. Divisional Manager.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., c/o. M/s. warranty & Insurance Administration Services (W and IA Services), 342, IIIrd Floor, Vardhman DEE CEE Plaza, Plot No.7, Sector-11, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 through authorized signatory.                                                                                                                                    …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Dharam Raj Rampal in person.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Sahil Sharma, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Sh. R.K. Chand, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         None.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant purchased new Samsung mobile JS Prime 32 GB from OP1 on 17.04.2018 for sale consideration of Rs.11,990/- vide invoice No.176110218500308. At the time of purchase, the mobile was got insured by OP1 from OP2 against theft as well as accidental damage. In this regard, OP1 charged a sum of Rs.13,190/- from the complainant. OP1 further issued theft and accidental damage certificate dated 17.04.2018 itself on behalf of OP2 and OP3 under its stamp and signature. Unfortunately, after the purchase of the mobile, when son of the complainant visited the market at Dugri, Phase-1, Ludhiana, the mobile along with the purchase bill and certificate of insurance was snatched by some unknown person. In this regard, the complainant along with his son approached the police at Police Station Dugri, Ludhiana but they demanded an authenticated proof of purchase of the mobile. The complainant visited OP1 on 18.04.2018 and gave information regarding theft of the mobile. OP1 was further requested to issue a duplicate invoice and certificate of theft and accidental insurance cover which were duly provided. OP1 further advised the complainant to lodge a complaint with the police and also to inform the insurance company. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged with the police on 18.04.2018. An application dated 19.04.2018 along with purchase bill and copy of the police complaint and copy of the insurance cover note was submitted with OP2 and an email was also sent to OP3 in this regard as no response was received from OP2. The application dated 21.04.2018 was sent by the complainant through registered post but despite that the claim having been lodged with OP2 and OP3 no action was taken by OP2 and OP3 to settle the claim. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Moreover, the OPs never provided nor issued any terms and conditions of the policy. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to settle the claim and reimburse Rs.11,990/- along with interest @12% per annum from 19.04.2018 till realization and further the OPs be made to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP1, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable. According to the OP1, it is only a seller of electronic items like mobile etc. whereas OP2 andOP3 are the insurance company which provided insurance certificate to the public at large. There is no direct relationship between OP1 and OP2 & OP3. It appears that the complainant has not followed the process of registration and to cover up his own mistake, the complainant is now blaming OP1. The complainant was duly informed that in case of any claim with the insurance company, the complainant was supposed to deal directly with OP2 and OP3 and OP1 was only a facilitator. Therefore, the complaint as against OP1 is not maintainable. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In a separate written statement filed on behalf of OP2 and OP3, it has been pleaded that the complainant has not disclosed the particulars of the insurance policy under which the mobile in question was covered/insured. The complainant has not placed on record any insurance policy or any such policy document. Therefore, there is no contract between the complainant and OP2 & OP3 and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable as against OP2 and OP3. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made. 

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C7 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA1 of Sh. Hanish Kumar, Store Manager of OP1 and closed the evidence. The counsel for OP2 tendered affidavit Ex. RW2/A along with document Ex. RW2/1 and closed the evidence.  

6.                None has been appearing on behalf of OP3 in this case since 30.05.2019. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP1 as well as OP2 and have also gone through records.

7.                The grievance of the complainant is that at the time the mobile was purchased, it was insured by OP1 and OP1 also issued certificate Ex. C2 which is duly stamped and signed on behalf of OP1. As per certificate, the mobile was covered under the special contingency policy issued by The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The value of the mobile is also mentioned as Rs.11,990/- in the certificate Ex. C1, OP1 charged a sum of Rs.11,990/- from the complainant as the cost price of the mobile and a sum of Rs.1500/- on account of one year free insurance. It is further specifically mentioned in the invoice that the insurance was for theft and accidental insurance. In all, OP1 charged a sum of Rs.13,190/- and along with invoice Ex. C1, OP1 issued insurance certificate Ex. C2 as well.

8.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP2 has pointed out that OP2 had no insurance arrangement with OP1. The counsel for OP2 has referred to the policy Ex. RW2/1 in which period of insurance is mentioned 26.04.2018 to 25.04.2019 whereas the complainant purchased mobile on 17.04.2018 vide invoice Ex. C1 and the insurance certificate Ex. C2 was also issued on 17.04.2018 itself. The counsel for OP1 has not been able to contradict the argument of OP2 nor OP1 has produced on record any policy which might have been in vogue prior to 26.04.2018. From these produced documents, it transpires that as a matter of fact, there was no arrangement of insurance between OP1 and OP2 prior to 26.04.2018. It would further mean that despite being so, OP1 insured the mobile and issued the certificate Ex. C2. Therefore, in our considered view, the deficiency of service is on the part of OP1 who issued insurance certificate Ex. C2 to the complainant despite the fact that OP1 has no such arrangement with OP2 and OP3. In the given circumstances, it would be just and proper if OP1 is made to reimburse the claim against the loss of the mobile. So far as OP2 and OP3 are concerned, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP2 & OP3 and, therefore, the complaint as against OP and OP3 cannot be said to be maintainable.   

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed as against OP1 with an order that OP1 shall reimburse the claim of RS.11,990/- to the complainant along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment. OP1 shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) to the complainant. The compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  However, the complaint as against OP2 and OP3 is dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:31.03.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Dharam Raj Rampal Vs Reliance Retail                                    CC/18/724

Present:       Complainant Sh. Dharam Raj Rampal in person.

                   Sh. Sahil Sharma, Advocate for OP1.

                   Sh. R.K. Chand, Advocate for OP2.

                   None for OP3.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed as against OP1 with an order that OP1 shall reimburse the claim of RS.11,990/- to the complainant along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment. OP1 shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) to the complainant. The compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  However, the complaint as against OP2 and OP3 is dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:31.03.2022.

Gobind Ram.