DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.153 of 3.4.2017
Decided on: 27.9.2017
Sandeep Singh, aged about 34 years son of Sh.Surinder Singh resident of H.No.865, St.No.14, Ghuman Naghar, Patiala, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Shivam Electronics & Computer Shoppe, SCO 35, Kissan Market, Sirhid Road, Patiala.
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Chhoti Baradari, Leela Bhawan, Patiala.
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Large Corporate Broker Officer (950000) 2nd Floor, 4, Mango Lane, Kolkata-700001, through its authorized signatory.
4. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., # 75, Sector 63, Noida, 201301, YMS Mobitech Pvt. Ltd.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Amar Singh,Adv.counsel for complainant.
Opposite parties No.1 to 4 ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
- The complainant purchased one apple mobile iphone 6(s) having IMEI No.358572073289411 from OP no.1 on 29.8.2016 for a sum of Rs.59000/-. The complainant got the mobile phone insured by paying an amount of Rs.3499/- on 29.8.2016 to OP no.1. It is averred that on 5.10.2016, when the complainant was returning after his morning walk, while he was using the mobile phone, it fell down and got damaged and became dead. The complainant intimated the OPs telephonically on 5.10.2016. The OP mailed a form for filling and sending the same. After completing the same, it was mailed on the same day. In compliance of the complaint, an official of the OP approached the complainant at his residence on 8.10.2016 and took the damaged set for repair. But in the month of January,2017, the same was returned to the complainant unrepaired. The complainant again lodged a complaint in this regard and mailed the duly filled form. Instead of redressing the grievance of the complainant, the OP no.4 intimated the complainant vide g-mail dated 27.1.2017 that his claim with CINSD65228547246 had been rejected on the ground, that “(I) claim form signature of the customer in given claim not matched with signature mentioned in previous claim (II) Damage (front) damage picture in given claim same as previous claim, case is rejected.”
The complainant again discussed the case with OP no.4 but to no use. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment and mental agony at the hands of the OPs. The action of the OPs in rejecting the claim of the complainant without valid reason amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
- On notice, OPs failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against ex-parte.
- In support of the case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents, Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased the iphone 6(S) on 29.8.2016 for an amount of Rs.59000/-.Ex.C2 is the receipt of Rs.3499/- vide which the said mobile phone was duly insured by the seller with New India Assurance Co.Ltd.. On 5.10.2016, the said mobile phone fell down and got damaged. Complainant made a telephonic complaint to the OPs and on 8.10.2016 one person, Mr.Tejinder Singh came and took the mobile phone with it and gave a receipt of the same i.e.Ex.C6. The OPs kept the mobile phone with it for two months and after that returned the mobile phone unrepaired to the complainant. The complainant again lodged a complaint and also sent the duly filled claim form but the OPs rejected the claim of the complainant vide Ex.C4 on the ground “ (I) claim form signature of the customer in given claim not matched with signature mentioned in previous claim. (II) Damage (front) damage picture in given claim same as previous claim, case is rejected”.
In the present case, the mobile phone of the complainant was duly insured against any liquid damage, physical damage, theft, burglary, mobile app and pickup and drop as is evident from Ex.C5 i.e. the insurance cover. OPs were bound to settle the claim of the complainant. The plea of ‘signature mismatch’ taken by OPs does not carry any weight as the OPs have failed to produce on record the copy of the same i.e. signature mismatch. The mobile phone got damaged during the period, while it was duly insured and the OPs were bound to settle the claim of the complainant which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Moreover, OPs failed to contest the claim of the complainant which shows the indifferent attitude of the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant.
6. As an upshot of aforesaid discussion, we accept the case of the complainant with a direction to the OPs to settle the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. OPs are further directed to pay a sum of R.6000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant along with a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:27.9.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
