BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.76 of 2016.
Date of Instt.:03.03.2016.
Date of Decision: 25.04.2017.
Anil Kumar son of Shri Prithvi Singh resident of village Bhattu Kalan Tehsil & District, Fatehabad.
...Complainant
Versus
1.Ssk Infotech Private Limited Plot No.521, Udyog Vihar, Phase-5, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122016, Ph.No.0124-4280703 through its Claim Manager.
2.Ssk Private Limited 7-Akshaya Complex, Office Dhole Patil Road, Pune-411001 through its Manager/Director, Contact No.02040131000.
3.M/s Khurana Mobile Gallery Palika Bazar, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its proprietor.
..Opposite Parties.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member. Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.
Present: Sh.Pankaj Bansal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Raj Kumar Godara, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.
OP 3 exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he had purchased a mobile Panasonic bearing IMEI No.354531060640519/354531060640527 a sum of Rs.8500/- from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.10021 dated 26.02.2015. The mobile in question was insured with OP Nos.1 & 2 through OP No.3 vide coupon scratch code No.60687544. It has been further averred that on 18.02.2016 when the complainant was going to Adampur from Bhattu on motor cycle then all of a sudden a stray dog appeared, therefore, the complainant fell down on the road the mobile handset, which was in his pocket, also got damaged. The complainant intimated about the incident to the OPs duly registered vide job card No.1602244390 dated 24.02.2016 and also submitted requisite documents as per their instructions and directions. It has been further averred that he was assured by the OPs that the claim would be settled shortly but despite that the OPs did not settle the same and repudiated the claim of the complainant; therefore, there is deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C1 to Annexure C7.
2. On notice, OP Nos.1 & 2 appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing joint reply wherein it has taken several preliminary objections such as locus standi, cause of action, estoppal, maintainability, non-joinder of necessary parties as the insurance scheme was facilitated by Leehan Retails Private Limited, therefore, the complainant was having a contract with Leehan Retails Private Limited and had no concern with OP Nos. 1 & 2. It has been further submitted that the claim of the complainant was rightly rejected because as per terms and conditions of the policy, the claim was to be lodged within 48 hours but the complainant had lodged the same after 48 hours as the incident had taken place on 18.02.2016 and the intimation was given on 24.02.2016 after a delay of six days. Other pleas made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made. OP No. 3 did not appear before this Forum despite notice, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.05.2016. In evidence, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 have tendered affidavit of Sh.Amar Deep Malik Annexure RW1/A besides documents as Annexure R1 to Annexure R3.
3. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OP Nos. 1 & 2 and have gone through the case file carefully.
4. Fact regarding purchasing of hand set from OP No.1 (Annexure C2) duly insured by OP Nos.1 & 2 (Annexure R7) is not disputed. The complainant has come with the plea that the mobile phone got broken during the subsistence of insurance period, which was valid for one year, but the Ops did not indemnify the loss suffered by him. The sole ground of the OP Nos.1 & 2 is that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy in question as there is delay in intimation about the incident to the insurer. In support of this plea learned counsel for the OP Nos. 1 & 2 drew the attention of this Forum towards condition No.V (c) wherein it has been mentioned that You must report the Loss promptly to us not later than 48 hours from the date of loss. If you do not report the loss within prescribed time, you will have forfeited your claim. You must submit all claims through our authorized representative for our approval prior to repair or the delivery of equipment. Any claims that are not submitted through our authorized representative for our approval will not been honoured and fulfilled. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a benevolent social legislation as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in their judgements from time to time and is aimed at providing for better protection of the interests of the consumers as defined in the preamble to the Act itself but despite that the insurance companies are having tendencies to avoid the genuine claims on one pretext or the other and this is main reason of increasing of litigation between the insured and insurance companies. Undisputedly, there is delay in intimation to the insurance company but it is not expected from a common man to know all the technicalities and procedure qua lodging the claim with the insurance company. There may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim of the claimant, which is otherwise proved to be genuine and therefore, it being a genuine claim of the complainant, cannot be denied in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in First Appeal No.43 of 2014 titled ‘Shriram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajesh Kumar’ decided on March 10th, 2014, wherein the circular Ref: IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 dated 20.09.2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority pertaining to delay in claim intimation/documents, was taken into consideration and it was held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in information and non-submission of documents. Moreover, Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as V.K.Kariyana Store V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited III (2014) CPJ 182 (NC) has held that Since upon issuance of insurance policy, insurer undertakes to indemnify loss suffered by insured on account of risks covered by policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of insurer.
5. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, present complaint is hereby allowed with a direction to the Ops No.1 & 2 to pay the billed amount Rs.8500/- (Annexure C2) to the complainant after making necessary deduction of 10 % as deprecation charges (as mentioned in Step No.5 of Annexure R3) besides compensation of Rs.2,000/- for harassment, mental agony including litigation expenses. The OP No.3 has no role to play in the matter in question, therefore, present complaint stands dismissed against OP No.3. This order should be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:25.04.2017.
(Raghbir Singh)
President,
(R.S.Panghal (Ansuya Bishnoi) Distt.Consumer Disputes Member. Member Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
