Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 482.
Instituted on : 18.08.2017.
Decided on : 05.08.2019.
Manish age 38 years, s/o Sh. Attar Singh R/o village-Samargopalpur Khurd, Tehsil & District-Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
1. Syska Gadget Insurance Co. Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No. 80, S.No. 232, New Airport Rd, Near Symbiosis College, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra - 411014.
2. Dashmesh Khalsa Mobile, Shop at-Gohana Road, Opposite Malik Medicos/Malik Dawai Wala, Rohtak124001(Haryana).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
Present: Sh. M.K. Vaid, Legal-Aid-counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Nikesh Kinra, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Sh.Rakesh Kumar Advocate for opposite party No. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased mobile phone model Sasmsung-045 on dated 23.08.2016 from the respondent No. 2 and the same was got insured through the agent of opposite party No.1. On 07.01.2017, the said mobile phone dropped into water from the pocket of the complainant when he was hit by someone. Due to which, mobile stopped all its functions. Thereafter, complainant immediately informed to respondent No. 1 and filed his claim. As per the direction of respondent No. 1, the complainant submitted necessary documents to the customer executive of Syska Gadget Insurance Company. On 29.03.3017, complainant has sent his damaged mobile to the company through courier. But after submitting all the required documents, complainant contacted to customer care executive but no satisfactory answer has been given by the opposite parties till now. That the act of opposite parties of not passing the claim amount is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay insurance claim amount of Rs.9000/- as full value for the said phone along with interest @ 24% per annum and Rs. 70,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that as per the policy terms, complainant had intimated about loss dated 07.01.2017, but the complainant failed to deposit the handset/mobile phone and in this regard when representative of answering opposite party had asked to the complainant then complainant replied that he courier the mobile set, but no handset received by the answering opposite party and the claim of the complainant was auto closed due to non-deposit of hand set. It was the duty of the complainant to deposit the handset with opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that at the time of repairing the handset, the retailer has no role/deficiency on his part and the complainant never made any complaint to the retailer from the date of purchase to till the date of filing of this complaint. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence on dated 20.09.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 made a statement that the reply already filed in this case, be read as affidavit in evidence, tendered documents Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on dated 28.05.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 also made a statement that the reply already filed on its behalf, be read as evidence and closed his evidence on dated 28.05.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, insurance and damage to the mobile in question is not disputed. After the damage, complainant filed the claim with the opposite party and submitted all the required documents. But the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party no.1 on the ground that no handset received by the answering opposite party and the claim of the complainant was auto closed due to non-deposit of hand set. In this regard, complainant has placed on record copy of courier receipt Ex.C6, as per which he has sent the documents on 15.02.2017 and the mobile in question on dated 29.03.2017. Hence the repudiation of claim on this ground is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the opposite party no.1 is liable to compensate the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party No.1 shall refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.9000/-(Rupees nine thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.18.08.2017 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The handset in question is already sent by the complainant to the opposite party No.1.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
05.08.2019.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member
