Complaint filed on: 18.06.2016
Complaint Disposed on:24.06.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.68/2016
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JUNE 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
H.B.Veeresh,
S/o Late H.B. Byregowda,
Aged about 46 years,
R/o Shambhavi Nilaya,
Behind Anjaneya Temple Road,
Vijayapura Extension,
Chikmagalur City.
(By Sri/Smt. H.B.Veerendra Kumar, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. Samsung India Electronic
Private Limited, B-1, Sector B-1,
Phase II, Gowthama Budda Nagara,
Noida District, U.P.
2. Pai International Electronics Ltd.,
H.O No.28/A1, 100 Feet Road,
Indira Nagara, Bangalore-38.
3. Pai International Electronics Ltd.,
Chandra Towers, Opp:Sri Kanika
Parameshwari Temple, M.G. Road,
Chikkamagaluru City.
4. The Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, No.1/1,
Connaught Road,
Queens Road Cross,
Bangalore-52.
(OP No.1 by Sri/Smt.T.N.Ramesh, advocate)
(OP No.4 by Sri/Smt.N.Devendra Kumar, advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos.1 to 4 alleging deficiency in service in not settling the claim towards theft of his mobile handset. Hence, prays for direction against Op Nos.1 to 4 to settle the claim towards the theft of mobile handset along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant had purchased one Samsung Galaxy Grand Prime mobile handset from Op No.3 on 14.01.2015 by paying an amount of Rs.14,902/-. At the time of purchase of the mobile handset Op No.3 had issued one year warranty period along with insurance policy bearing No.421704/48/2015/695 which was issued by Op No.4 and as per the policy the mobile handset covers the risk of theft and burglary.
Such being the case, on 19.11.2015 at about 11.10 A.M. when the complainant went to vegetable market to purchase vegetables, some unknown persons stolen the mobile handset from the complainant, immediately complainant started searching the mobile handset, but inspite of best efforts he did not found the mobile handset. Subsequently, he given a police complaint to Town Police, Chikmagalur and police have registered the complaint and issued endorsement. After the police complaint the complainant approached the Op No3 and intimated the theft of the mobile handset and also submitted the claim application to Op No.4 on 22.11.2015. After submitting the claim application the Op No.3 told the complainant to visit him in the first week of January 2016, as per the advice the complainant approached OP no.3 on January 2016, at that time again Op no.3 advised the complainant to approach them in the month of march. As per the advice again complainant visit the Op no.3 in the month of march and enquired about settlement of the claim. At that time Op No.3 expressed that the claim application was rejected as per the terms and conditions of the policy. But Ops have illegally rejected the claim of the complainant towards theft of his mobile handset. Subsequently, complainant issued a legal notice dated 24.03.2016 through RPAD and called upon the Ops to settle the claim, but even inspite of receipt of the legal notice also Ops have not settled the claim. Hence, Op No.1 to 4 rendered a deficiency in service in not settling the genuine claim of the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against Op Nos.1 to 4 to settle the claim along with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op Nos.1 and 4 appeared through their counsel and filed version. Op Nos.2 and 3 not appeared before this Forum inspite of service of the cause notice. Hence, Op Nos.2 and 3 placed exparte.
4. Op No.1 in his version has contended that this Op did not know that complainant had purchased mobile handset from Op No.3 on 14.01.2015 and also did not know that at the time of purchase of the mobile handset Op No.3 issued insurance policy which covers theft of the mobile handset. Further, they did not know that on 19.11.2015 the complainant lodged a complaint before jurisdiction police with respect to the theft of the mobile handset.
This Op No.1 further contended that they are only a manufacturer of the mobile handset and they are only responsible towards their product, its performance and to provide necessary services in time as per the company warranty policy. Hence, there is no liability or obligation on the part of this Op with respect to the theft of the mobile handset of the complainant. There is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Op No.4 in his version has contended that, it is true that the complainant had purchased Samsung Galaxy Grand Prime from Op No.3 on 14.01.2015 by paying an amount of Rs.14,902/- and this Op had issued a policy by covering the risk of theft and burglary of the mobile handset. But they are only liable subject to terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions of the policy. After receipt of the claim form from the complainant they noticed that there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the theft covers if the equipment is stolen from the insured person where the thief has used violent of force against him or seriously threatened to use violence, whereas in this case it is only a theft occurred and no violence or threat was used. Hence, there is no coverage to the claim of the complainant as per the policy terms and conditions. Hence, the claim was repudiated and there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op in repudiating the claim of the complainant. As per the police endorsement they noticed that while complainant kept his mobile handset in his pocket, it was stolen in the market. There is negligence on the part of complainant in maintaining the mobile handset. Hence, they are not liable to settle the claim and also not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by complainant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.13 and only Op No.4 filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 to R.6.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.4?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 to 3?
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Affirmative.
- Point No.2: Negative.
- Point No.3: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1, 2 & 3:
8. There is no dispute that, the complainant had purchased Samsung Galaxy Grand Prime mobile handset from Op No.3 on 14.01.2015 by paying sum of Rs.14,902/-. There is also no dispute that as on the date of purchase of the mobile handset Op No.4 issued a policy covering risk of theft and burglary against the mobile handset. We found that there is also no dispute that on 19.11.2015 the mobile handset of the complainant was stolen by unknown persons in vegetable market at Chikmagalur. For which complainant lodged a police complaint before Town Police and after receipt of the police complaint police have given endorsement to the complainant. The copy of the receipt for having purchase of the mobile marked as Ex.P.1, Police complaint and affidavit marked as Ex.P.2 and 3, Police endorsement marked as Ex.P.4. Complainant also produced policy issued by Op No.4 marked as Ex.P.5, Claim Form marked as Ex.P.6, Letter of Subrogation marked as Ex.P.7, Format of police complaint marked as Ex.P.8, Claim pre receipt voucher marked as Ex.P.9, Office copy of the legal notice marked as Ex.P.10 and Postal acknowledgment due marked as Ex.P.11 to 13. Op also produced original receipt for having purchase of the mobile handset marked as Ex.R.3, Policy with terms and conditions marked as Ex.R.4, Format of the police complaint marked as Ex.R.6.
9. On going through the documents produced by both the parties, there is no dispute that Op No.4 had issued a policy covering risk of theft and burglary. In this case admittedly on 19.11.2015 the mobile handset was stolen by unknown persons and subsequently, complainant had given a police complaint and police have in turn issued endorsement to that effect. The said police complaint and endorsement are sufficient to settle the claim of theft as per the policy terms and conditions issued by Op No.4. Whereas Op No.4 instead of settling the claim have repudiated on flimsy grounds that the theft was covered in the policy if there is a violence or threatened to commit violence, but there is no any such conditions found in the policy issued by Op No.4(Ex.P.5). Hence, it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of Op No.4 in not settling the genuine claim of the complainant. We found after receipt of the claim form Op No.4 not made any attempt to investigate the matter, without any investigation simply they have repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, Op No.4 being the insurer is liable to settle the claim of the complainant towards theft of the mobile handset. Op No.4 being the insurer is also liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service in not settling the claim of the complainant, even after obtaining the letter of subrogation as per Ex.P.7 along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
Here the Op No.1 is a manufacturer of the mobile handset and Op Nos.2 and 3 are the sellers of the mobile handset, who have obtained a policy from Op No.4. We found there is no any deficiency in service on the part of Op Nos.1 to 3 as alleged by complainant. Hence, the complaint against Op Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 3 in the Affirmative, point no.2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
- OP No.4 is directed to settle the claim of the complainant towards theft of the mobile handset along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand Rupees only) for deficiency in service and litigation expenses Rs.1,000/- (One thousand Rupees only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order, failing which the payable amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.
- The Complaint against Op No.1 to 3 is hereby dismissed.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 24th day of June 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H.MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant/S:
Ex.P.1 - Copy of the receipt issued by Op No.3.
Ex.P.2 - Police complaint.
Ex.P.3 - Copy of the Affidavit .
Ex.P.4 - Endorsement.
Ex.P.5 - Copy of the Policy.
Ex.P.6 - Copy of the claim Form.
Ex.P.7 - Letter of subrogation.
Ex.P.8 - Format of Police complaint.
Ex.P.9 - Claim pre receipt voucher.
Ex.P.10 - Office copy of the legal notice.
Ex.P.11 to 13 - 3 Postal acknowledgment due.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:
Ex.R.1 - Authorization letter.
Ex.R.2 - Copy of the policy.
Ex.R.3 - Purchase bill.
Ex.R.4 - Insurance terms & conditions.
Ex.R.5 - NCR.
Ex.R.6 - Format of police complaint.
Dated:24.06.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
