BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; BHIWANI.
Complaint No.254 of 2016.
Date of Instt.:05.12.2016.
Date of Decision: 16.01.2020
Anirudh son of Sh.Birbal resident of Netaji Nagar, Near Sector 13-Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
...Complainant
Versus
1.Sunny Mobile World, 51, Adrash College Market, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani Tehsil & District Bhiwani (Haryana) through its proprietor/Authorized person.
2.Apps Daily Solution Pvt. Ltd. Halwasia Mall, Shop No.18, 1st Floor, Hansi Gate Bhiwani-127021 through its authorized person.
3.UB Insurance Associates (Apps Daily Claim Division), S 204 & 205, Suraj Palaza, 196/8, 25th cross 8th Main, Jayanagar 3rd Block, Bangalore-560011 Karnataka through its Branch Manager/authorized person.
4. New India Assurance Company Limited Regional Office, 2B, Unity Bldg. Annexe, Mission Road, Bangolore-560027 (Karnatka) through its authorized person.
..Opposite Parties.
Before: Sh. Nagender Singh, President.
Sh. Shriniwas Khundia, Member
Present: Sh.R.N.Rohila, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties No.1 to 3 exparte.
Sh.Satender, proxy counsel for opposite party No.4.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties with the averments that he had purchased mobile from opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.9990/- vide bill No.17723 dated 08.08.2015 and also got the same insured from opposite parties No.2 to 4 through opposite party No.1. The mobile phone in question got stolen on 09.01.2016 and regarding this police report was registered on the same day. The complainant has also lodged claim with the opposite parties but they did not pay the insured amount of the mobile despite the fact that the mobile phone got stolen during the subsistence of insurance period. The act and conduct of the opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
2. On notice, only opposite party No.4 appeared and filed its reply wherein several preliminary objections such as maintainability, cause of action, estoppal and concealment of material facts have been taken. It has been submitted that there was delay in making the complaint to the police regarding the loss of the instrument and there was also tampering in the date on the police report. As per complainant, the phone was got lost/stolen on 09.01.2016 but as per document on record the SIM of the mobile phone was blocked on 24.12.2015 which indicate that the mobile was lost prior to 24.12.2015. The story put-forth by the complainant is false and fabricated, therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated on 26.05.2016. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. Notices were sent to opposite parties No.1 to 3 through registered post but none had appeared before this Forum despite lapsing of period of 30 days, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.02.2017.
3. The complainant has tendered in evidence Annexure C1 to Annexure C10 and closed the evidence on 30.10.2018. On the other hand, the opposite party No.4 has tendered his affidavit Annexure RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R8 and closed the evidence on 18.11.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
6. Fact regarding purchasing of hand set from opposite party No.1 (Annexure C3) duly insured by opposite party No.4 (Annexure C4) is not disputed. The complainant has come with the plea that the mobile phone got lost/stolen during the subsistence of insurance period, which was valid for one year, but the opposite parties did not indemnify the loss suffered by him. The opposite party No.4 i.e. insurance company has come with the plea that there was delay in making the complaint to the police regarding the loss of the instrument and there was also tampering in the date on the police report. As per complainant, the phone was got lost/stolen on 09.01.2016 but as per document on record the SIM of the mobile phone was blocked on 24.12.2015 which indicate that the mobile was lost prior to 24.12.2015, therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated on 26.05.2016. The plea taken by the insurance company is not tenable as no evidence in support thereof has been produced before this Forum. It is settled law that mere pleadings without concrete evidence have no value in the eyes of law. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Vinod Kumar Versus Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors., III (2011) CPJ 194 (NC). Learned counsel for the complainant has rightly argued that the purpose for getting the mobile insurance was to feel secure in case of any mis-happening such as damage or theft but when the mobile in question of the got stolen/lost during the subsistence of the policy, then it was obligatory on the part of insurance company to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him on account of theft/loss of mobile. Undisputedly, the mobile of the complainant was stolen/lost during the subsistence of the policy and the insurance company has not paid the claim amount to the complainant despite receiving of premium for the same, therefore, it is enough to reach at conclusion that the insurance company has not acted fairly and due to this the complainant /insured has suffered mental agony and harassment on account of deficient service on behalf of insurance company. In the present case the insurance company has not followed the terms and conditions of the policy and has failed to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant, therefore, complaint against opposite parties No.1 to 3 is dismissed.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present complaint is hereby accepted against opposite party No.4 with a direction:
(i) To refund Rs.9990/- (after deducting Rs.500/- being excess clause amount) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint tills its realization.
(ii) To pay Rs.4000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship and cost of litigation.
Compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: - 16.01.2020
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
