DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 203 of 12.5.2016

                                      Decided on:                    23.8.2017

Jaspreet Singh Narang son of Sh.Harpal Singh, resident of House No.4024, Urban Estate, Phase II, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. SSK LED Lights Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.109, Ist Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Mr.Deepak Goel.
2. Syka Gadgets Secure, 4^th Floor, Saphire Plaza, Plot No.80, S No.232, New Airport Road, Near Symbiosis College, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune (Maharashtra) through its Managing Director.
3. EMM Ess Refrigeration, Model Town, Patiala through its Proprietor/Partner.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                                       

ARGUED BY:

                                       Sh.Vipan Sharma, Adv. counsel for complainant

                                      Opposite parties No.1 to 3 exparte.                             

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone make I Phone 64GB Gold) bearing IMEI No.352091073912415 from OP no.3 for an amount of Rs.52000/- vide invoice No.2344 on 9.10.2015 and also got the same insured with OP no.1 vide invoice No.2345 by paying a sum of Rs.2399/- on 9.10.2015. It is averred that on 10.1.2015, the said mobile phone got badly damaged by falling down and the complainant immediately informed the OPs telephonically on 14.11.2015 vide complaint No.1511140059.The OPs assured the complainant that the insured amount would be paid to the complainant but the OPs kept on lingering on the matter under one pretext or the other. On 5.2.2016, the complainant sent an e-mail from his e-mail id
2. On notice, OPs No.1&3 failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against exparte. Whereas Op no.2 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. After filing reply it failed to produce evidence on record despite seeking many dates and was ultimately proceeded against exparte. In its reply, the only plea taken by OP no.2 is that it rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that as per the rules and regulations of OP no.2, the information regarding damage to the mobile phone and the complaint for claiming damages was to be given by the complainant within 48 hours from the date of damage to the mobile phone. The complainant has failed on both the said grounds. As such OP cannot be said to be deficient in service in any way. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. In support of the complaint, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C8 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
5. Ex.C1 is the invoice whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from Op no.3 on 9.10.2015 for a sum of Rs.52000/-.Ex.C2 is the invoice, whereby he got the same insured with Op no.1 by paying a sum of Rs.2399/- .On 10.11.2015, the said mobile phone got damaged and the complainant immediately made a telephonic call to Op no.1 and OP no.1 gave the complaint No.151114005 dated 14.11.2015 .Ex.C3 is the repudiation letter whereby the OP rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that, this is a case of negligence and also the complaint is not registered by the customer. Hence the claim is not admissible as per policy. Ex.C4 is the booklet of Syska Gadget Secure, which contains product features and policy documents. The on.ly plea taken by OP no.2 in its written version was that information regarding damage to the mobile phone as well as the complaint for claiming damages was to be given within 48 hours from the date of damage to the mobile phone, which the complainant failed to comply with. In the present case, the complainant has alleged that his mobile phone got damaged on 10.11.2015 and he immediately informed Op no.2 telephonically. Whereas Op no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant intimated OP no.2 regarding the damage to the mobile phone as well as the complaint for claiming the damage on14.1.2015.Though Op no.2 has taken this plea but has failed to produce on record any documentary evidence which may show that the same was made on 14.11.2015 i.e. after a period of 48 hours from the date of damage to the mobile phone. The mobile phone got damaged within a period of one month of purchasing the same. The complainant got the same insured by paying a sum of Rs.2399/- as the mobile phone was a costly set. OPs were bound to settle the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Failure on the part of the OPs to settle the claim of the complainant amounted to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant underwent a lot of mental agony and harassment at their hands.Moreover, failure on the part of the OPs to contest the case of the complainant shows the indifferent attitude of the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OP no.2 to settle the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. OP no.2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.8000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.4000/- 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: 23.8.2017               

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                    NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER