BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.256 of 2017
Date of Instt. 27.07.2017
Date of Decision: 27.03.2018
Tejinder Singh S/o Sh. Prithipal Singh aged about 47 years r/o H. No.131-B, New Defence Colony, Nangal Karar Khan, Jalandhar Cantt.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Syska Gadget Secure C/o Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd., Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar through its Manager/Concerned Person/Authorized Representative.
2. Syska Gadget Secure, H O 4th Floor, Sapphaire Plaza, New Airport Road, Vimannagar, Pune, Maharastra Through its CEO/MD/Concerned Person.
..….…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. Ravish Malhotra, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Opposite Parties exparte.
Order
Harvimal Dogra (Member)
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OP is engaged in business of providing insurance services for the mobile phones and other gadgets and having its head office at Pune and branch office at Jalandhar. The complainant has purchased the Samsung Mobile A7 2016 from Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd., Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar, amounting to Rs.25,500/- on 14.07.2016. The representative of the OP was sitting at Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd. The representative of the OP told about the insurance scheme of his company on mobile phone and said that mobile would be secure if insurance be taken by the complainant. He told that the theft, damage, water falling etc. covered in the insurance for one year. The complainant took the insurance of new mobile phone and paid a sum of Rs.2399/-.
2. That on 18.05.2017, the complainant was using his mobile phone on the side of Kartarpur highway and one unknown vehicle hit the complainant from his back accidentally. The mobile of the complainant fell down from his hand and the screen of it had broken/cracked. On 20.05.2017, the complainant lodged his claim by scanning the claim form issued by the representative of OP and submitted online to the OP, alongwith the claim form, complainant submitted all the required documents to the OP, which they required to submit. Complainant submitted claim form, declaration letter, photos of damaged mobile phone with IMEI Number, photocopy of bill and ID Proofs etc. The OP issued the claim No.91705194210 to the complainant. The OPs rejected the claim of the complainant on 27.06.2017 with remarks that documents not submitted. The wrong and false plea has been taken by the OP as the complainant has submitted all the documents to the OP as per their requirements. The messages received by the complainant from OP regarding the required documents are attached. The refusal of the claim of the complainant on false ground clearly shows the malafide intention of the OP, which caused financial loss, harassment and mental agony to the complainant and it is also a deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the amount of Rs.25,500/- of the price of mobile alongwith premium amount of the insurance i.e. Rs.2399/- and further OPs be directed to pay compensation for harassment to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service, both the OPs did not come present and ultimately, the OPs were proceeded against exparte
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith document Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-20 and closed the exparte evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. In nutshell, the case set up by the complainant is only that he purchased a mobile A7 make Samsung from Chadha Mobile House on 14.07.2016 after making a payment of Rs.25,500/- and copy of the Invoice is Ex.C-1 and at that time, one representative of the OPs was also present in the shop of Chadha Mobile House, who allured the complainant to get insurance of the mobile and accordingly, the complainant got insured his mobile phone after making a payment of insurance premium of Rs.2399/-, vide Ex.C-2 and thereafter, the mobile of the complainant was damaged due to accident, occurred on the road, near Kartarpur Highway, the said accident was took place on 18.05.2017 and then immediately the complainant lodged an insurance claim on 20.05.2017 after enclosing all the required documents, but the claim of the complainant was rejected by the OP on 27.06.2017 with the remarks that documents not submitted and accordingly, alleged that the OP has harassed the complainant and also there is a deficiency in service and filed the instant complaint.
7. We have gone through the contents of the complaint as well as documents placed on the file by the complainant i.e. Ex.C1 to Ex.C20 and find that the complainant submitted an insurance claim and its copy retained by the complainant is Ex.C-3 and also wrote a letter to the OP, which are Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-11 and then email message received from the OPs, which are Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-15 and further Ex.C-17 to Ex.C-20, the aforesaid email messages itself established that the claim of the complainant was rejected by the OP No.2, simply on the ground that the required document was not submitted, but as per version of the complainant, he has submitted all the required documents, so, at this stage, it is very difficult to ascertain whether virtually the complainant has not submitted all the documents, which are required to settle the claim or the OPs are demanding any documents, which has been already submitted by the complainant, if the OP appeared, then it must be explained in the Forum that which documents has not been submitted by the complainant, but in this case, the OP has not appeared and moreover, the claim of the complainant is neither accepted nor denied by the OP rather the same is only rejected for want of documents, it means the complaint of the complainant is pre-mature and until the claim is not repudiated by the OP, the complaint of the complainant cannot be decided properly. So, under these situations, we find it appropriate and proper to direct the OPs to settle the claim of the complainant, after getting documents, if any remained to be furnished by the complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order, in case the OP failed to decide the claim of the complainant within 30 days on either way, then OP will liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% from the date of filing complaint, till realization. We like to make it clear that if after settlement of the claim, the complainant will not satisfy or accept that settlement of the OP, at that eventuality, the complainant has liberty to file a fresh complaint upon that cause of action and accordingly, this complaint is disposed of. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
27.03.2018 Member President
