Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1085/2016

Rohit Khullar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syska Gadget Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Jatin Khullar

13 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1085/2016
Date of Institution	:	21/12/2016
Date of Decision	:	13/09/2017

 

Rohit Khullar, age 33 yrs s/o Sh. Varinder Khullar resident of House No.262, Indian Express Society, Sector 48-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Syska Gadget Insurance Secure Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd. through its Director or Managing Director, 4^th Floor Sapphire Plaza, Plot No.80, Sr. No.232, New Airport Road, Near Symbosis College, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune Maharashtra-411014.

2.     Chhabra Telecom through its Proprietor or Partner, Booth No.179, Sector 36, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. Anuj Ahluwalia, Counsel for OP-2

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the complainant purchased an Apple iphone 6 from OP-2 vide invoice dated 24.10.2015 for Rs.45,000/-.  On the assurance of OP-2, the complainant also purchased the Syska Gadget Secure Insurance Policy (Annexure C-2) and paid Rs.2,500/- for the same.  As per the said policy, in case the mobile phone was stolen or damaged, OPs were to pay the claim amount of Rs.45,000/-. According to the complainant, who is a practicing advocate at District Courts, Chandigarh, on 6.8.2016 when he went out of his chamber for some work and the mobile phone was with him, at about 5:00 p.m. he found that the same had been stolen. DDR No.35 dated 6.8.2016 was also registered regarding the same. On 7.8.2016, the complainant made a call to OP-1 and informed about the theft of the mobile phone and got the mobile No.9815329955, issued in the name of his father, blocked.  However, despite completion of the documents and formalities, OP-1 failed to release the claim amount.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP-1 in its written reply has not disputed the factual matrix.  It has been averred that for approval of claim, it asked for certain documents from the complainant, but, he failed to supply the same. It has been stated that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, it was not a forceful theft and is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. As such, the claim of the complainant was rejected. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OP-2 in its separate written reply has admitted the facts with regard to the purchase of the mobile set and Syska Insurance policy. It has been stated that the complainant was specifically told that in case of any claim of insurance, he would be required to submit the claim directly to OP-1 and the same would be subject to terms and conditions of OP-1. The complainant was also told that OP-2 has no role in acceptance or refusal of the claim. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Separate rejoinders were filed by the complainant denying the averments in the written replies of OPs 1 & 2.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsels for OP-1 and OP-2.
7.         It is evident from Annexure C-1, copy of the retail invoice, that the complainant purchased one Apple Iphone 6 from OP-2 on 24.10.2015 for Rs.45,000/-.  Annexure C-2 is a copy of the Syska Gadget Secure Insurance card which the complainant purchased after paying another amount of Rs.2,500/- to OP-2.  The sole grouse of the complainant is that one evening his mobile handset was stolen and despite registering DDR and giving information about the theft to the OPs and completion of filing of all the documents and formalities with regard to insurance, the OPs denied the claim. Hence, the complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
8.         The stand taken by OP-1 is that the complainant himself failed to supply a few documents to ascertain the settlement of the claim. It has also been contended that as the theft reported in the present case was not a forceful one, therefore, the same is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy.  On the other hand, OP-2 has taken the plea that before purchase of the Syska Gadget Secure Insurance policy, the complainant was specifically explained that in case of loss, he need to submit the claim directly to OP-1 which will be settled by OP-1 only as per its terms and conditions.  It has also been pleaded that the sole responsibility of settling the claim is of OP-1 and not of it.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on its part.
9.         The purchase of the handset as well as the Syska Gadget Secure Insurance Policy is admitted by OP-2.  Evidently, as per Annexure C-3, a DDR was registered and also sim of the handset in question was blocked as the same was stolen by some unknown person. A perusal of Annexure C-2 (at page 15) clearly reveals that there is mention of theft protection in bold letters.  We are of the opinion that while selling such insurance policies, the minute terms and conditions are not explained to the consumers; rather OPs make money without explaining the details. These terms and conditions being unilateral are not acceptable as such.  OP-1 appeared in the present case and has taken the shelter of these terms and conditions, but, it has not placed on record the details of the terms and conditions. It is also a matter of fact that the consumers give additional amount for the purpose of insurance of their expensive gadgets to be secured in case of any theft or accident or liquid damage.
10.         So far as the question of non-submitting the document is concerned, the same is placed on record as Annexure C-7 by the complainant. But, despite receipt of the same, the OPs never showed their interest to settle the claim of the complainant by taking the shelter of their unilateral terms and conditions.  Therefore, the act of OPs in grabbing the money from their gullible consumers by taking the shelter of Gadget Secure Insurance Policy and later on non-honouring their own commitments proves deficiency in service on their part which certainly caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
11.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To settle the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.45,000/- as per the invoice value of the handset;
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

12.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(iii) above.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
13/09/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member