Haryana

Kurukshetra

07/2018

Saravjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smart ZOne - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Thakur

17 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.7 of 2018.

Date of instt.:10.01.2018. 

                                                                        Date of Decision: 17.02.2020

 

Saravjeet Singh s/o Shri Gurmukh Singh, r/o H.No.842, Amin Road, Bye Pass Chowk, near Bharat Gas Godown, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. 

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                             Versus

 

1. The Proprietor, Smart Zone Shop No.321, Sangam Complex, Railway Road, Kurukshetra.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                 

Present:     Shri Shekhar Thakur, Advocate for the complainant.        

                Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.

Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Saravjit Singh against Smart Zone and other, the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile handset MI (Xiomi) model No.MI ‘5’ from OP No.1 vide cash/credit Memo No.1083 for a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The OP No.1 represented him about insurance produced of OP No.2 Apps You Need Noida regarding mobile insurance coverage in respect of damage, theft insurance. Accordingly, he got insurance from OP No.2 through OP No.1 by paying Rs.1749/- vide Master Policy No.95000046161100000001 for the period from 06.6.2016 to 06.6.2017. On 29.12.2016, he was riding on his bike at Kurukshetra and suddenly a stray animal (dog) came in front of his way, due to that, he got off balance and fell down and since the mobile was in his pocket that’s why the mobile also fell down and damaged. On the same day, he went to OP No.1 shop, where OP No.2 official gave him claim form and submitted the same and claim No.D97339134927 was generated. The mobile set was picked by them with the assurance that he would get the claim amount into his account within 30 days. He wrote down many emails since from submission of his claim i.e. 29.12.2016 to OP No.2, but all in vain. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 18.11.2017 to the OPs for realizing the claim, but the Ops neither replied the legal notice nor paid the claim amount. By not paying his genuine claim, the OPs are deficient in services. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 before this Forum, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.02.2018.

                Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action and complaint is bad for mis-joinder & non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant is himself at fault as it was partial loss case. The company has deputed an IRDA approved independent surveyor for assessment the loss, who has approved the loss of Rs.6,000/-. Repair of the mobile pending due to remittance of previous repair claim proceeds from the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., so the claim of the complainant has not been finalized by the company. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.2. On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same against the OP No.2.

                Initially, the complainant has impleaded the Managing Director, Apps You Need Corporate as OP No.2, but during the pendency of the case, the complainant has given up the OP No.2 being unnecessary party vide recorded his statement. Accordingly, the OP No.2 was given up vide order dated 04.06.2019 by this Forum.

4.             The complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-21 and closed the evidence.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant The OP No.1 represented him about insurance produced of OP No.2 Apps You Need Noida regarding mobile insurance coverage in respect of damage, theft insurance and accordingly he got insured his mobile phone  from OP No.2 through OP No.1 by paying Rs.1749/- vide Master Policy No.95000046161100000001 for the period from 06.6.2016 to 06.6.2017. On 29.12.2016. It is further argued that he was riding on his bike at Kurukshetra and suddenly a stray animal (dog) came in front of his way, due to that, he got off balance and fell down and since the mobile was in his pocket that’s why the mobile also fell down and damaged. It is also argued that on same day, he went to OP No.1 shop, where officials of  OP No.2 gave him claim form and submitted the same and claim No.D97339134927 was generated. The mobile set was picked by them with the assurance that he would get the claim amount into his account within 30 days. He wrote down many emails since from submission of his claim i.e. 29.12.2016 to OP No.2, but all in vain despite service of legal notice. Thus, it is argued that for non payment of his claim, there is deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and he is entitled to claim amount.

6.             Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has reiterated all the averments mentioned in his respective reply. He argued that the  complainant is himself at fault as it was partial loss case. The company has deputed an IRDA approved independent surveyor for assessment the loss, who has approved the loss of Rs.6,000/-. Repair of the mobile pending due to remittance of previous repair claim proceeds from the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., so the claim of the complainant has not been finalized by the company. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.2.

*****

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file and also the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant.

 

8.             It is admitted that  fact complainant had purchased mobile from the OP no.1 and was got insured from OP No.3. It is also admitted fact that after six months, mobile of the complainant was got damaged. Due to insurance, OP No.3  have to pay the cost of the mobile phone to the complainant. This shows the deficiency of OPs to not to pay the amount to the complainant. So, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay the amount  of Rs.25000/- i.e. cost of the mobile phone   after 25% deduction to the complainant. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- on account of mental harassment and agony caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:17.02.2020.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.